The Delhi High Court held that the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide and extends to documentary evidence in addition to oral testimony. The provision can be used whenever the evidence is essential for a just decision.
ITAT Mumbai observed that the charitable trust had filed its original return within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1). The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication of the exemption claim instead of rejecting it on technical grounds.
Tribunal ruled that compliance with judicial orders restraining deduction of tax at source cannot attract liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that if Government money was fraudulently routed through the assessee’s account by another person, such deposits may not constitute the assessee’s income. The case was remanded for factual verification.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be imposed without a finding that goods were liable to confiscation. The Tribunal set aside the penalties as the impugned order contained no such determination.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-S.T. as the taxable value of services remained below Rs.10 lakh. The Tribunal ruled that no service tax liability arose in such circumstances.
The assessee claimed that amounts deposited in bank accounts were retailer collections remitted to the telecom company and not commission income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct proper verification.
The Hyderabad CESTAT held that amounts recovered from vendors for delayed performance of contracts cannot be treated as consideration for tolerating an act under Section 66E(e). The service tax demand on liquidated damages was set aside.
The Madras High Court held that prosecution under Section 276CC was invalid because the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over the assessee’s case. In absence of a transfer order under Section 127, the complaint was held unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi condoned a 333-day delay in filing appeal after finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be bona fide. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
