The article highlights how High Court Benches are unevenly allotted across States, leaving large regions without accessible courts. It underscores how this disparity undermines equality and access to justice.
The AO treated loans as unexplained due to incomplete confirmations. The Tribunal confirmed deletion after remand proceedings verified lenders’ identity, capacity, and transaction genuineness.
The reassessment was struck down because it relied exclusively on third-party search material. The ruling clarifies that section 153C, not section 147, must be invoked where incriminating evidence emerges from another persons search.
Delhi High Court held that recalling bail order in GST evasion on account of clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka denied since there is no perversity in the order. Further, there is nothing to show that he is a flight Risk or there is any likelihood of his influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence.
A Section 57(iii) interest claim was rejected solely due to the loan’s classification as a home loan. The tribunal held that if allowed earlier, the same view must prevail unless facts change.
The AO had treated all bank cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that regular cash sales explained most deposits and restricted the addition to ₹10 lakh only.
The Tribunal held that a protective addition cannot be termed erroneous when the same income has already been assessed substantively in another case. The twin conditions of error and prejudice under section 263 were not satisfied.
Authorities held that non-filing of Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts violated Section 117 of the Companies Act. The ruling reiterates that filing board resolutions is a mandatory statutory obligation.
The Tribunal ruled that when all statutory documents are on record and unchallenged, section 68 cannot be invoked. Suspicion cannot substitute proof in share capital cases.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated for an amount implicitly accepted in original assessment. The Tribunal ruled that reopening amounted to change of opinion and was legally unsustainable.
