The court held that cheque dishonour caused by a statutory account freeze during insolvency does not attract criminal liability. The key takeaway is that lawful incapacity, not default, defeats Section 138 prosecutions.
The Tribunal held that cancellation of the earlier sale deed restored legal ownership to the assessee’s family. Consequently, compensation received on compulsory acquisition qualified for exemption under section 10(37).
The High Court ruled that tax authorities cannot ignore a binding ITAT Special Bench decision under Section 264 merely because the department has appealed it. Judicial discipline requires adherence unless the ruling is stayed or overturned.
The Tribunal examined whether delay in filing the tax audit report warranted penalty under section 271B. It held that liquidation proceedings and the illness and death of the partner constituted reasonable cause under section 273B, justifying deletion of penalty.
Allegations center on discounted asset purchases followed by high-value charitable donations to secure outsized tax deductions. The key takeaway is the risk posed by inflated appraisals and weak valuation controls.
The Tribunal examined whether a third-party seized document could be ignored as a dumb document. It held that once cheque entries in the same document matched recorded transactions, related cash entries could not be disbelieved and addition under section 69C was justified.
The Tribunal ruled that penalty proceedings are consequential to assessment. When the assessment issue is pending before the High Court, penalty cannot be enforced.
The Tribunal examined whether revision under section 263 could survive when the show-cause notice was issued to an entity that had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation. It held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void ab initio, rendering the revision order invalid.
The court held that advocates cannot be compelled to disclose how they obtained documents filed for clients, reaffirming attorney–client privilege under evidence law.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that reassessment cannot be based on re-appreciation of facts already scrutinized earlier. Without failure of disclosure, invoking Section 147 beyond four years was invalid.
