The Court held that failure to consider a remand report acknowledging agricultural income constituted an apparent error, leading to recall of the earlier judgment and remand for fresh adjudication.
Explains when a lawyer’s refusal crosses into professional misconduct, especially in cases of discrimination or collective boycotts, and reinforces the duty to ensure access to justice.
The issue concerns how purchase classification affects tax treatment. The key takeaway is that bogus purchases lead to full disallowance, while non-genuine ones attract only profit-based additions.
The issue highlights the distinction between accounting and auditing functions. The key takeaway is that independent audits ensure accuracy, compliance, and reliability of financial statements.
The issue concerns taxing goods based on retail price instead of actual transaction value. It highlights that such valuation lacks nexus with supply and may violate constitutional principles governing tax measures.
The case addressed whether arrest without written grounds violates constitutional safeguards. The Court held the arrest illegal and awarded compensation for unlawful detention. It reinforces mandatory compliance with arrest procedures.
The ruling clarifies that unaccounted stock discovered in surveys should be assessed as tax liability under Sections 73 and 74. It holds that Section 130 confiscation proceedings are not applicable in such cases.
The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated after four years based on existing records. It held that reopening founded on a change of opinion is impermissible, and such reassessment was quashed. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The case involved multiple additions challenged by the revenue after relief was granted to the assessee. The Court held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the claims in remand, no substantial question of law survives.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. It ruled that such debatable issues do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reinforces limits on penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
