The tribunal held that dismissal for non-prosecution was invalid where notices were not served on the email ID specified in Form 35. Authorities must strictly follow the communication mode chosen by the taxpayer, failing which proceedings are vitiated.
Delhi High Court held that reference by Council of ICAI for suspension of name of CA from register of Member for period of one year is accepted since professional misconduct of CA i.e. manipulation of public issue and ante-dated stock-investment duly established.
The issue was whether a housing society could intervene in insolvency proceedings. The Court held that societies are distinct juristic entities and lack standing unless recognised as creditors or authorised representatives. The ruling clarifies strict limits on participation at the pre-admission stage.
Additions were deleted after finding that the Revenue relied on presumptions rather than tangible proof. The decision reinforces that the burden to prove undisclosed income lies on the tax authorities.
The case examined whether full purchase disallowance was justified without rejecting books of account. The Tribunal held that in such circumstances, only a reasonable profit element could be added.
Supreme Court held that under Section 138 of the NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a Cheque. Thus, multiple cheques arise from one transaction will give arise to separate prosecution u/s. 138 of NI Act.
Although the assessee quoted the wrong provision in the appeal form, the challenge was clearly against a scrutiny assessment. The Tribunal ruled that procedural lapses cannot defeat a valid statutory appeal.
The Tribunal found that estimating agricultural income solely on standard yield figures ignores real-world farming variables. The assessment was partly modified by limiting the addition to ₹50,000.
The Tribunal examined whether provision for salary arrears arising from the Sixth Pay Commission was contingent or accrued. It held that the liability had accrued for services rendered and was allowable as an ascertained liability.
The Tribunal ruled that VAT collected but not credited to the profit and loss account cannot be treated as taxable income. Once substantially paid to the government, such liability cannot be added again as trading receipts.
