The Court ruled that consistency in tax litigation presupposes an informed and deliberate decision by authorities. Mere failure to raise an issue in one year due to oversight does not bar future appeals.
Chennai ITAT held that variations between Insight Portal data and GSTR-2A could not automatically establish unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained without evidence of actual unrecorded expenditure.
Delhi CESTAT held that an importer who accepted enhanced valuation and paid duty without protest could not later challenge the assessment in appeal. The Tribunal found the acceptance of US $2.30 per kg valuation to be unconditional.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s challenge against the Delhi High Court ruling on duty drawback accrual, MODVAT credit treatment, and raw material consumption additions. The HC had largely ruled in favour of the assessee.
The Delhi High Court held that duty drawback accrues only upon passing of the order by the competent authority and not merely in the year of export.
ITAT Mumbai held that where reassessment is based on documents seized during a search on another person, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the Allahabad High Court ruling holding that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 cannot be initiated merely because excess stock was found during survey.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the Allahabad High Court ruling holding that mere excess stock found during survey cannot justify confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act.
The Court held that shareholder resolutions seeking removal of directors under Section 284 are independent of Section 188 requirements relating to circulation of members’ resolutions.
The Delhi High Court upheld restraint on a company’s move to remove a director because the special notice only made vague allegations without disclosing particulars. The Court held that statutory rights under Section 169 require meaningful grounds and opportunity of representation.
