The Calcutta High Court held that allegations arising from a financial dispute and strained relations did not satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court found no prima facie evidence of instigation or intentional provocation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that proportionate interest disallowance cannot be sustained without establishing a direct nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free advances. The Tribunal deleted the addition as the assessee had sufficient own funds.
The Supreme Court held that a later judgment modifying the legal position cannot, by itself, justify review of concluded cases. Relying on Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it dismissed the review petition and refused liberty to seek review.
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration through a non-speaking order violates the statutory requirement of recording reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules.
The Court held that the bank could not be penalized under Section 201 for complying with binding judicial directions that prohibited TDS on LTC payments during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that although foreign LFC reimbursements were ultimately held taxable, the bank could not be treated as an assessee-in-default for complying with a subsisting High Court direction restraining TDS deduction.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits linked to recorded cash sales could not be taxed again under Section 68, as doing so would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal held that cash received from members and credited to their accounts could not be treated as unexplained income of the co-operative society under Section 68.
The Supreme Court held that a stay on recovery proceedings only suspends enforcement and does not wipe out the obligation to pay interest on excise arrears. The beneficiary of an interim order must restore the successful party to the position it would have occupied otherwise.
The Court held that penal interest could not be imposed after the petitioner had paid the admitted dues and the earlier dismissal order had been recalled. The ruling turned on the specific facts of the case and was declared non-precedential.
