The issue was whether bank credits already offered as income in an HUF’s return could again be taxed in the individual’s hands. ITAT held that double taxation is impermissible and directed the AO to verify HUF records before making any addition.
Additions were made solely because the trust failed to submit details during assessment and appeal. ITAT set aside the assessments for fresh adjudication, stressing that substantive claims should be decided on merits rather than procedural lapses.
ITAT held that Section 153C cannot be invoked where the satisfaction/hand-over date is after 01.04.2021, quashing multiple assessments framed thereafter. The ruling follows the Madras High Court and reinforces Section 153C(3)’s statutory bar.
The Court ruled that failure to substitute the legal representatives of one heir does not automatically abate proceedings. Abatement arises only where the deceased party’s interest is left wholly unrepresented.
Failure to make service charge voluntary and to address consumer complaints was held to breach statutory consumer rights. Software modification and penalty were directed.
The consumer authority ruled that adding service charge by default, even after clear judicial guidance, violates consumer rights. Full refund and a monetary penalty were ordered, reinforcing that service charges must be voluntary.
The Supreme Court held that repeated non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in attestation and verification forms is fatal to candidature. Truthful disclosure at entry is mandatory, regardless of later acquittal or clarification.
The issue concerned classification of a beverage processing aid containing Polysorbate 65. The Authority held that it met Chapter 34 criteria and classified it as a non-ionic organic surface-active agent.
The case examined whether rugged portable devices with scanning and connectivity features should be treated as communication equipment. The Authority held that since data processing is the principal function, the devices are classifiable as portable ADP machines under Tariff Item 84713090.
The Authority rejected the application as the applicant failed to rectify notified deficiencies despite reminders. The ruling underscores that procedural compliance is mandatory before an advance ruling can be considered on merits.
