The article explains how fear-driven cash hoarding and overconfidence in equities can undermine long-term investment goals, advocating balanced, adaptive strategies.
The Tribunal deleted an addition under Section 69A after holding that cash deposits were explained through prior bank withdrawals. The ruling affirms that redeposit of own withdrawn cash cannot be treated as unexplained.
HC upheld Section 10A deduction after finding that STP unit was a new undertaking with fresh investment and infrastructure. It ruled that unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the taxpayer’s reply and the payment already made through DRC-03. The ruling reiterates that material submissions must be examined before confirming tax and penalty.
The High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that notices were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab, denying proper service and hearing. The case reinforces procedural safeguards under GST law.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the device i.e. Face Recognition System is clearly Automatic Data Processing machinery falling under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 8471 only and not under CTH 8543. Accordingly, appeals are allowed.
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker cannot be penalised merely because the exporter mis-declared goods or value. Liability under CBLR requires independent proof of broker’s breach of obligations.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued much after the surviving period is barred by limitation. Accordingly, notices are set aside and petition is allowed.
Madras High Court held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot review its earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. Notably jurisdiction of Tribunal is restricted only to rectify error and not review.
The order clarifies that procedural violations in private placement cannot be excused merely because the company was a start-up. Strict compliance with Section 42 remains mandatory.
