The Court held that repeated summons under Section 70 cannot continue once the inquiry purpose is satisfied and sufficient material is available.
The High Court held that the assessment was time-barred as it was not completed within the mandatory period under Section 144C.
The Supreme Court held that the classification dispute involved factual issues that should be decided by the statutory authority. It restored the show cause notices and set aside the High Courts order.
The Court held that the availability of a statutory appeal barred interference in writ jurisdiction. It ruled that no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the appellate remedy.
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory appeal before CESTAT. It held that no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the appellate remedy.
The Supreme Court held that Article 226 jurisdiction over Armed Forces Tribunal orders is not barred. It ruled that judicial review by High Courts remains available despite the Tribunal’s appellate framework.
ITAT held that mere transfer of records cannot replace a valid transfer of jurisdiction under Section 127, rendering the assessment invalid.
The Court held that the Section 148 notice was invalid as it was issued by an Assessing Officer who no longer had jurisdiction.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty under Section 271D could not survive where the assessment order contained no satisfaction for initiating such proceedings. The penalty was quashed for lack of valid jurisdiction.
ITAT held that computer software is eligible for 60% depreciation and directed the AO only to verify its actual cost before computing the deduction.
