The Supreme Court recommended that all High Courts incorporate rules requiring accused persons to disclose involvement in previous criminal cases in bail applications. The Court also expunged adverse remarks made against a Judicial Officer, holding them uncalled for.
The High Court ruled that the amended refund formula under Rule 89(5) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively. Earlier rejection and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that mere booking of flats and receipt of token advances do not justify revenue recognition under the Percentage Completion Method without legally enforceable agreements.
The Court held that Section 119(2)(b) empowers condonation to avoid genuine hardship and rejected a hyper-technical denial of tax benefit. Delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned and Section 115BAA benefit restored.
ITAT held that the 10% tolerance band under property valuation provisions applies retrospectively. The PCIT’s revision was set aside as it amounted to a change of opinion.
The Court ruled that an assessee cannot invoke Section 139(8A) after initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 143(2). It affirmed the disallowance of deductions and held that appeal is the proper remedy.
DRAT Allahabad set aside the DRT order for not examining the borrower’s plea of non-service of Section 13 notice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper hearing.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the DRT’s direction to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs, finding no infirmity in the interim order. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
The Tribunal sustained attachment of Rs. 1 crore under the Benami law but remanded the case for further investigation, citing insufficient proof to prosecute.
