Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
The ITAT quashed the entire reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, observing that the foundational notice was issued after the permissible date. The ruling underscores that procedural timelines under TOLA cannot be extended retroactively. Subsequent orders based on the invalid notice were held without jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court upheld that both Jurisdictional and Faceless Assessing Officers can issue reassessment notices under Section 148, dismissing claims of FAO-exclusive authority.
SC confirmed an auction sale after judgment debtors failed to raise partial-sale objections at correct stage, emphasizing strict compliance with Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC.
ITAT held that bank deposits consistent with declared fruit business turnover cannot be treated as unexplained under section 68; the addition of ₹1.29 crore was directed to be treated as genuine receipts.
ITAT held that framing reassessment without issuing a statutory 143(2) notice is invalid, quashing reassessments for a real estate company despite alleged bogus expenses.
The Court held that revocation of a LoI without reasons violated natural justice. It reaffirmed that contractual rights must be protected when parties have relied on government approvals in public procurement.
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, holding that no prima facie case existed against the accused. The ruling highlights that civil disputes cannot be turned into vindictive criminal cases.
The Supreme Court held that failure to issue notice under Section 7(5)(b) IBC invalidates NCLT rejection; defective affidavits alone do not nullify applications.
The reassessment notice under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 did not comply with the amended provisions requiring enquiry and hearing. The NFAC held the reassessment order void ab initio. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural safeguards under amended law.
