The Tribunal held that cash disclosed in earlier returns can explain seized cash. It restricted addition to the unexplained portion. Key takeaway: prior disclosures carry strong evidentiary value.
Taxpayers were unable to file appeals when demand orders reflected zero liability despite disputes. The advisory clarifies that rectification must be sought to enable appeals and protect statutory rights.
CBIC clarified that goods moving from SEZ to DTA are deemed imports. Hence, re-export of such goods qualifies for drawback under Section 74. The key takeaway is uniform treatment of SEZ clearances.
The analysis clarified that shareholder protection is ensured through ultimate parent consolidation. Hence, intermediate companies can still claim exemption under Section 188. The ruling highlights functional over literal interpretation.
The law was enacted to impose stricter penalties for sacrilege, including long-term imprisonment and heavy fines. It establishes broader accountability and aims to deter offences through a comprehensive legal framework.
The Tribunal invalidated reopening as the AO obtained approval from the wrong authority. It held that compliance with Section 151 is a jurisdictional requirement. Key takeaway: improper sanction nullifies reassessment.
The issue was failure to pass a final assessment order after DRP directions within the statutory timeline. The Court held the assessment invalid and time-barred, quashing the proceedings.
The issue was whether seat adjustment components qualify as seat parts or auto parts. CESTAT held they are integral seat parts under CTI 9401, overturning reclassification and duty demand.
The issue was whether stamp duty value of redevelopment property is taxable without possession. ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) applies only on actual receipt, so no tax arises without possession.
The issue was whether delay in filing appeal can be condoned when assessment order was not served. ITAT held that non-service constitutes sufficient cause, requiring fresh adjudication on merits.
