Supreme Court ruled that compassionate appointments are concessions, not rights. Once a dependent accepts a post, claims for higher posts are barred to prevent endless compassion.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment notices must be individually evaluated for surviving limitation. AO directed to re-compute limitation under Rajeev Bansal framework before deciding validity.
Delhi appellate authority’s ex-parte confirmation of unexplained money under Section 69A was set aside. ITAT directed CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, granting one final hearing opportunity.
Supreme Court dismissed compensation appeals, holding that accident occurrence alone cannot establish liability. Claimants failed to prove involvement of the offending vehicle or rash driving.
ITAT held that failure to claim TDS credit in the return is only a procedural lapse. Once TDS is reflected in Form 26AS, credit must be granted after verifying corresponding income.
Delhi ITAT quashed ex-parte assessments under Sections 144/147/143(3) as the authorised signatory’s serious illness prevented contesting, ensuring a fair opportunity to present evidence.
ITAT Delhi dismissed an appeal where the assessee continuously absented itself, upholding additions under Section 143(3). The case reinforces that tax law protects diligent litigants, not those neglecting their rights.
Delhi ITAT restored the matter to CIT(A) after finding that additional evidence was accepted without allowing AO to respond. Procedural safeguards under Rule 46A are essential, even for official records.
The Tribunal admitted an additional legal ground under Rule 11, allowing examination of the Section 148 notice on admitted facts. Since the notice was issued after the limitation period, the reassessment order and ₹3.34 crore additions were set aside.
Tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s deletion of addition under Section 69A for cash deposits from painting sales, ancestral jewellery, and customary gifts. Revenue failed to challenge the well-supported factual findings.
