The Tribunal emphasized that for notices issued before 01.04.2021, the sanctioning power rested solely with the JCIT, making the PCIT’s approval invalid. Consequently, the ₹82.89 crore disallowance and all further proceedings were set aside.
The judgment clarified the distinction between personal and newly purchased gold, allowing the petitioner to contest confiscation under customs regulations.
ITAT allowed exemption under Section 11, holding that Revenue cannot deny benefits due to clerical omission of registration details. Key takeaway: procedural mistakes should not override substantive law.
Court allows appeal despite earlier dismissal for non-compliance with statutory pre-deposit, noting recovery of over 10% of disputed tax satisfies the condition. Key takeaway: partial pre-deposit enables merits hearing.
The Court ruled that an income tax appeal cannot be rejected solely for non-appearance. The matter was remanded because the appellate authority failed to examine the issues raised under Section 250(6).
The court upheld the trial court’s decision permitting the Income Tax Department to place additional notices on record. Key takeaway: Section 91 Cr.P.C. may be invoked at any stage for documents necessary for fair adjudication.
The Court upheld the customs officer’s reasonable belief for seizing goods over alleged misclassification and found the challenge premature due to pending statutory proceedings. The ruling confirms that classification disputes must be resolved through adjudication under the Customs Act.
The appeal highlighted that the flat sought to be released did not appear in the ED’s list of attached properties. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority should have independently verified this fact instead of shifting responsibility to the financial creditor. It set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh decision based on a complete examination of records.
ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
Tribunal remanded the case after finding that documentary evidence submitted during assessment was not examined. The matter is sent back for fresh evaluation with an opportunity of hearing.
