The case examined severe shortcomings in menstrual hygiene facilities in government schools and their impact on girls’ dignity and education. While the issue was held to raise serious rights concerns, the Commission declined intervention, citing its limited jurisdiction over systemic policy failures.
The case examined whether properties mortgaged with banks could be released from attachment. The Tribunal ruled that repayment of loans using illicit funds justified attachment to preserve assets for confiscation.
The issue was whether statements and digital records from Customs probes could support FEMA action. The Tribunal ruled they are admissible and sufficient to establish illegal foreign exchange payments.
The case examined whether penalty quantum should reflect the appellant’s role in the transaction. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after noting the dominant involvement of a third party and lack of comprehensive investigation.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2023-Customs merely because the petitioner did not adopt the LoC route is impermissible in fiscal jurisprudence. Accordingly, benefit granted as petitioner satisfied clause (i) of condition no. 6 of said notification.
NCLT Allahabad held that financial creditor duly established existence of financial debt and default thereon on the part of the Corporate Debtor i.e. Bhagwati Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. hence application filed u/s. 7 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process admitted.
No on-money addition was made in the cases of other co-owners of the same property. The ITAT held that the Revenue cannot adopt a contradictory stand on identical facts.
The issue was whether a buyer could be taxed for alleged cash payment based only on the seller’s admission. The Tribunal ruled that in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, no on-money addition can be sustained in the buyer’s hands.
Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and held that refund on account of inverted tax structure is allowable relying on the final order of earlier tax period. Thus, order rejecting refund is quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
