Bombay High Court held that in the present case there is full and true disclosure on the part of the petitioner. Reopening of assessment, on the ground that another director of the same company has disclosed the income differently is evidently a change of opinion and unsustainable in law.
Supreme Court of India held that in money laundering case the issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence.
ITAT Hyderabad held that in case of violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, penalty can be only in the year in which violation has taken place and not in any assessment year.
ITAT Jaipur held that delayed payment of employee contribution to PF/ESI as prescribed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is beyond the ambit of adjustments to be carried out u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand of interest under section 61(2)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 unsustainable as SCN is time barred.
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that duty demand in a case of clandestine clearance cannot be sustained if there is no conclusive evidence of physical movement or diversion. The demand based on assumptions and presumptions is unsustainable.
Madras High Court held that as writ is filed, in the matter of differential duty in respect of portable emergency lamp, after a lapse of almost sixteen years, the same needs reconsideration on merits and in accordance with law.
Guwahati High Court held that any member of a Scheduled Tribe as defined in Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, residing in any of the areas prescribed u/s. 10(26), is exempted from payment of income tax. However, residing in any area specified cannot be given a narrow and restricted meaning.
CESAT Chandigarh held that interest u/s 27(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 is available after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application till the date on which the refund has actually been paid.
ITAT Hyderabad held that it is mandatory for CIT(A) to grant responsible opportunity to the Assessing Officer in case additional evidence is admitted. However, in the present case, the documents based on which relief is granted was already available with the department and hence there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
