The issue was whether demonetization cash deposits were unexplained. The Tribunal held that deposits from recorded business sales cannot be taxed under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that exemption cannot be denied based on a re-export condition imposed through a DGH certificate when such a requirement is absent in the notification.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of expense disallowance after finding that occupation charges were settled during the relevant year. It ruled that such crystallized liabilities are allowable under Section 37(1), dismissing the Revenue’s objections.
The case addressed whether charging fees negates charitable status. The Tribunal held that this alone cannot justify rejection and ordered re-examination of the application with proper analysis.
The order highlights that both improper issuance of notices and incorrect application of law led to invalid recovery proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the demand and granted relief to the appellants.
Explains that vague show cause notices lacking details of suppression violate legal principles. Highlights that extended limitation and penalties require clear proof of intent.
Clarifies that export value used in refund calculation must be consistently applied in both numerator and denominator. Highlights that inconsistency leads to notices and delays.
The Court examined whether prior orders and perceived bias justified recusal and held they did not. It ruled that unsubstantiated apprehensions cannot form the basis for disqualification of a judge.
The Court examined whether show-cause notices covering multiple financial years are valid and noted divergent High Court rulings. It referred key legal questions to a Larger Bench for final determination.
The operators avoided traditional hacking and instead used structural loopholes in website optimisation. The incident shows how technical weaknesses can undermine regulatory frameworks.
