The Tribunal found that sanction must come from the Principal Chief Commissioner when reopening is beyond the three-year period prescribed by the amended law. Because the approval was taken from the Pr. CIT, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction and was invalidated.
The judgment confirmed that Section 11(2) of the EPF Act creates a first charge that overrides SARFAESI’s priority clause. Thus, provident fund contributions, interest, penalties, and damages must be paid before clearing secured creditors’ dues.
The SC invalidated 50-year age and 25-year practice requirements for advocates and CAs, reaffirming merit-based eligibility and protecting tribunal efficiency.
Raipur ITAT remanded the section 68 addition of ₹14.3 lakh, observing that NFAC/CIT(A) failed to examine confirmations, ITRs, or facts. The order lacked independent reasoning and was set aside for fresh adjudication.
Tribunal held that Rule 8D disallowance cannot exceed the assessee’s total claimed expenditure and directed restriction of the 14A addition. The ruling clarifies limits on 14A disallowances where expenses are minimal.
Tribunal affirms major penalties for widespread delays and non-reporting of NTRs, STRs, and CBWTRs. Held that systemic AML lapses cannot be excused by technical issues; strict compliance is mandatory.
The Tribunal set aside the earlier order because it had relied on the now-recalled Ganpati Dealcom judgment while excluding pre-2016 funding from scrutiny. The matter has been sent back for fresh adjudication, ensuring the Benami allegations are reconsidered on merits.
Tribunal reduces FEMA penalty from ₹30 lakh to ₹10 lakh, confirming that unauthorised netting-off of ₹1.72 crore foreign commission violated statutory repatriation rules.
The Tribunal ruled that even without direct fund transfer, deep financial and management integration justified tagging the deposits as value of proceeds of crime. The attachment was sustained as the company formed part of the same economic group.
The Court upheld provisional attachment of Rs. 1.35 crore, finding the Appellant supplied cheaper PDW while claiming reimbursement at Rail Neer rates. The loss to the government and breach of mandatory supply obligations justified the action.
