The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive tax relief. It held that Form 67 filed during rectification proceedings is valid compliance, allowing reconsideration of FTC claim.
The Tribunal condoned a 1394-day delay, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural lapses. It ruled that BSNL VRS compensation qualifies as exempt retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), allowing full tax relief and refund.
ITAT Mumbai quashed reassessment as approval under Section 151 was obtained from the wrong authority. Notice under Section 148 held invalid, making entire proceedings void ab initio.
The court examined whether reassessment beyond six years was valid without identifying an asset. It held that the absence of any asset in recorded reasons makes extended limitation inapplicable. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional conditions must be strictly satisfied for reopening beyond six years.
The Tribunal held that tax demand cannot be confirmed under a category not proposed in the show cause notice. It ruled that such reclassification violates settled legal principles and renders the demand invalid.
The Court held that the appellant was not given a chance to contest the legality of seizure. It ruled that such challenge must be permitted in confiscation proceedings to ensure fair hearing.
The issue involved denial of representation through counsel during GST proceedings. The Court held that personal appearance cannot be insisted upon when law permits authorised representation.
The tribunal examined whether imported rubber is liable to additional duty equivalent to cess. It upheld the levy by following earlier decisions and the appellant’s own case. The key takeaway is that consistent precedents were applied to sustain the demand.
The court examined whether road tax and penalties could be demanded for issuing an NOC. It held that such charges are not applicable when only an NOC is sought. The key takeaway is that NOC issuance cannot be linked to tax liabilities meant for registration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer went beyond revisionary directions by including additional issues. It ruled that such excess additions were invalid and liable to be deleted.
