CESTAT Ahmedabad held that once a partnership firm is penalized under customs law, a separate penalty on its partner for the same contravention cannot be imposed in absence of specific statutory provision.
The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to reconsider the applications after granting a hearing. The Court kept the challenge to the validity of the amended provisions open.
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail in a case involving alleged large-scale GST evasion through fake firms, bogus invoices, and fraudulent e-way bills. The Court held that serious economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies require a stricter approach in bail matters.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that replacing projected cash flows with actual profits while applying the DCF method is legally impermissible. The decision reaffirmed that DCF valuation is inherently based on future estimates and business expectations.
The Rajasthan High Court held that GST authorities cannot reopen issues already adjudicated by the Authority for Advance Ruling without fresh material or change in facts. The Court quashed show cause notices alleging misclassification of tobacco products under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that additions under section 68 cannot survive where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent verification of alleged accommodation entries. Reliance solely on third-party investigation reports was rejected.
The Tribunal upheld tax addition where agricultural land was acquired below stamp duty valuation and DVO-determined fair market value. It ruled that agricultural status of land does not exclude applicability of section 56(2)(x).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to show independent application of mind or establish a nexus between investigation material and escaped income.
Madras High Court held that the Central Board of Trustees under the EPF Act can challenge Tribunal orders under Article 226 since the constitutional right to seek judicial review cannot be denied.
CESTAT Bangalore held that extended limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked as there was no suppression or intent to evade duty in defence-related software imports.
