The appellate tribunal held that the bank violated Rule 8(5) by conducting the auction nearly ten months after valuation without obtaining a fresh report. The sale and subsequent actions were set aside on this ground.
The court refused to grant a mandatory stay on income tax demand where the taxpayer had earlier proposed paying dues in instalments. The ruling underscores that voluntary payment proposals can weaken claims for interim protection.
The tribunal held that objections to the maintainability of a bank’s Original Application claiming over Rs. 50 crores were rejected, affirming DRT jurisdiction over debts arising from fraudulent withdrawals.
The appellate tribunal upheld cancellation of the auction after finding that possession and sale notices were not properly served. It ruled that recovery actions without statutory compliance cannot be sustained.
The Court held that customs officials acting in their official capacity cannot be cross-examined as a matter of right. Cross-examination is permissible only where specific prejudice is shown.
The Tribunal held that where identical facts existed in earlier years, the addition for alleged bogus purchases must follow past precedent. It restricted the addition to 5 percent, applying the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal upheld reopening and reassessment but reduced the estimated commission income from 2% to 1% due to absence of comparative or segmental justification.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer were without authority when the faceless assessment scheme applied. Relying on binding precedents, the writ petition was disposed of in favour of the taxpayer, reaffirming NFAC’s exclusive role.
Emphasising the principle against double taxation, the Tribunal held that amounts taxed in members’ hands cannot again be assessed in the society’s hands, subject to factual verification.
The Court condoned an extraordinary delay after finding that the appellant was genuinely pursuing settlement under a State-backed amnesty scheme. Procedural delay was held insufficient to defeat substantive rights.
