The Court indicated that the three-year practice requirement should continue and sought suggestions from High Courts and law universities before deciding on the plea for exemption.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Karnataka High Court decision that Kambala events cannot be restricted only to Dakshina Kannada and Udupi, as the PCA amendments permitting such sports have been upheld.
The Calcutta High Court declined to interfere with an income tax assessment order, holding that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory appeal remedy is available. The Court directed the assessee to pursue the appellate process.
The Madras High Court examined repeated provisional attachment orders issued under Section 281B without detailed reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration of the attachment to enable the assessee to access working capital facilities.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea to prohibit Kambala in areas like Bengaluru, noting that the Supreme Court has already upheld the legality of state amendments allowing such traditional sports.
The Court held that the petitioner had already brought the matter to the authorities and declined to issue a mandamus. It expressed confidence that authorities would consider earlier observations while formulating a model policy.
The Supreme Court held that candidates with benchmark disabilities could be considered for Group C posts identified as suitable under a 2021 notification. Authorities were directed to process their dossiers and ensure appointment.
ITAT Delhi held that additions under Section 153A cannot be sustained without incriminating material discovered during a search, leading to deletion of major additions and dismissal of Revenue appeals.
The Tribunal upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct enquiry into excess diesel shortage claimed by the assessee. It held that incomplete enquiry makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee could not respond to certain notices. The case was restored for reconsideration after giving adequate opportunity.
