The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after April 2021 were valid. The Tribunal held that notices issued beyond the surviving time limit were barred, rendering all reassessment proceedings void.
CESTAT Allahabad held that extended period of limitation is not invocable since alleged inadmissible cenvat credit was duly reflected in the return. Accordingly, demand beyond normal period of limitation set aside.
The assessee sought relief citing internal lapses and adviser dependence. The Tribunal ruled that consistent audits and filings undermined claims of ignorance. Long delays require specific, convincing justification, which was absent.
Madras High Court held that in terms of provisions of section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 no action shall be taken against the property of the corporate debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP.
The PCIT sought to revisit claims already scrutinized and partly disallowed. The Tribunal ruled this to be a change of opinion and invalid. Revision demands clear error and prejudice, not reappraisal.
Kerala High Court held that levy of penalty on the basis of statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act is not sustainable since provisions of section 138B have not been complied with. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
Accepting the assessee’s explanation for delay and non-appearance, the Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside both lower orders. The AO was directed to re-decide the issue of cash deposits after proper hearing.
Patna High Court allowed the writ and held that liquor manufacturer is permitted to payment for unsold stock which is destroyed on implementation of Bihar Government Prohibition policy effected in 2016. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Madras High Court held that grant-in-aid/ subsidy received from the Government under a rehabilitation scheme is capital receipt and cannot be treated as revenue receipt. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of appellant.
Demonetisation cash deposits cannot be taxed merely on suspicion when supported by statutory VAT/Excise records, sales growth, and business expansion. Rule 46A(4) empowers CIT(A) to call for such evidence without triggering procedural violations.
