The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer erred in applying a 6% net profit rate without examining comparable cases engaged in the same line of business. The decision highlights the necessity of objective criteria while estimating profits after rejection of books.
The Supreme Court held that a stay on recovery proceedings only suspends enforcement and does not wipe out the obligation to pay interest on excise arrears. The beneficiary of an interim order must restore the successful party to the position it would have occupied otherwise.
The Court held that penal interest could not be imposed after the petitioner had paid the admitted dues and the earlier dismissal order had been recalled. The ruling turned on the specific facts of the case and was declared non-precedential.
The debate over mandatory pre-deposit in GST penalty-only proceedings has gained momentum after the Finance Act, 2025 amendment. Courts have indicated that taxpayers’ vested appellate rights arising before the amendment may deserve protection.
The article examines whether automated interest notices for FY 2019–20 can survive after limitation under Section 73 has expired. It highlights judicial views that disputed interest requires adjudication and cannot be recovered through indirect mechanisms.
The analysis explains the statutory mechanism under Section 168(3) for restoring a functioning Board when all directors resign or vacate office. It also discusses the role of promoters and the Central Government in preventing a governance vacuum.
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in restoring benami appeals solely on the basis of liberty granted in a later Supreme Court review order. It ruled that statutory limits governing review proceedings must still be satisfied.
The Supreme Court held that final judgments cannot be reviewed merely because the legal position later changes. It ruled that the overruling of an earlier precedent does not satisfy the requirements for review under Order XLVII CPC.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued physically by jurisdictional officers instead of faceless authorities violate Section 151A. The ruling sets aside non-compliant notices while tying the final outcome to pending Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court set aside notices issued under Sections 148A and consequential reassessment orders after holding that the proceedings suffered from jurisdictional infirmities. The relief, however, remains subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in the pending SLP.
