Held that repair expenditure of propaganda van, a gifted vehicle, was alleged to be met by the donor. The onus was on assessee to negate the allegation of revenue. However, no such onus was discharged. Disallowance of expenditure justified.
Held that when two choices are available, one under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the other under such arrangement with the employer and if the latter offers better terms, the employee cannot be denied the right to receive those higher benefits.
Held that offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 420 of IPC are distinct from each other because ingredients of the two offences are different. Person can be prosecuted under both the said sections.
Held that the respondent i.e. Yes bank being a private Bank is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Held that the re-assessment and addition of the duly accounted cash sales of the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 by the AO without rejection of the books of account of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the Act is unjustified
Held that the power to grant bail is not to be deployed as a mechanism for imposing sentence even before a guilt is yet to be proved and established.
Held that impugned order without any DIN is in violation of CBDT circular no. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 and hence held as invalid.
Held that revenue needs to establish that the goods lying or found in the shop/ godwon of the assessee are not duty paid.
Held that treating value of international transaction as NIL without searching for transaction between non-associated enterprises is unsustainable in law
Held that a person from whom goods are seized has the right to seek provisional release immediately even as adjudication proceedings takes its own course.
