The ITAT Ahmedabad restored reassessment proceedings after the assessee produced documents showing disputed property sales and pending civil litigation. The Tribunal held that additions relating to capital gains required fresh examination where sale transactions themselves were contested.
ITAT Nagpur held that reassessment proceedings cannot survive without issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal ruled that participation by the assessee does not cure complete absence of statutory notice.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 must comply with the amended limitation provisions under Section 149 effective from 01.09.2024. The Court quashed the notices as time-barred due to absence of material showing escaped income above Rs. 50 lakh.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that an inadvertent withdrawal of the penalty appeal instead of the quantum appeal did not defeat settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and treated the appeal as withdrawn.
The NCLT Kolkata admitted a Section 7 IBC petition after holding that the bank successfully established existence of financial debt and repayment default. The Tribunal initiated CIRP and imposed moratorium against the Corporate Debtor.
The Chhattisgarh High Court denied anticipatory bail after finding prima facie material indicating involvement in the alleged coal levy scam. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary due to statements, electronic evidence, and the seriousness of the economic offence.
The Mumbai CESTAT remanded a service tax dispute after finding that the appellant failed to include grounds of appeal in the prescribed ST-4 form. The Tribunal held that proper pleadings are essential for meaningful appellate adjudication.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a CFS operator remained liable to pay cost recovery charges even without formal sanction of customs posts. The Court applied the doctrine of “substance over form” after finding that customs supervision and services were continuously provided.
The Tamil Nadu AAR held that “Pooja Panneer” could not claim GST exemption as puja samagri because the exemption notification specifically listed eligible items. The Authority ruled that the word “namely” made the list exhaustive and not illustrative.
The Tamil Nadu AAR observed that devotees’ tonsuring is a religious activity exempt from GST, but the subsequent licensing of hair collection is a separate commercial transaction liable to GST.
