ITAT Bangalore held that an appeal filed without verification by the authorized Principal Officer was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed liberty to file a properly verified appeal with condonation request, if necessary.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment notices issued after scrutiny assessment were invalid because the Assessing Officer had already examined the Section 50C valuation issue during original proceedings. The Court ruled that reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.
ITAT Delhi noted that confirmations from the company and broker regarding share transactions were available but not adequately considered by the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded for denovo assessment.
The Supreme Court held that self-assessment introduced under the amended Customs Act qualifies as an assessment order under Section 2(2). Importers seeking refund must first challenge such assessment through statutory remedies before filing refund claims.
The High Court held that GST on ocean freight under FOB contracts cannot be levied separately when the transaction has already suffered tax. The ruling extends the anti-double taxation principle beyond CIF contracts.
The Tribunal reiterated that disbursement of funds to the debtor is an essential condition for financial debt. Since no money was advanced to the corporate debtor, the claimant was not a financial creditor.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Indian currency cannot be confiscated under Section 121 of Customs Act without clear evidence connecting it to smuggled goods. Tribunal ruled that investigative statements alone are insufficient to justify seizure of cash as sale proceeds of smuggled gold.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a money recovery suit after finding that the lender failed to produce a valid licence under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. The Court held that Section 13 bars courts from granting decrees in favour of unlicensed money lenders.
CESTAT ruled that the Department failed to consider ST-3 returns and service tax already discharged by the assessee. The Tribunal held that duplicate tax demands arising from erroneous calculations could not survive.
The Hyderabad ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) could not delete unexplained cash deposit additions merely on the basis of submissions and audit reports without supporting documents proving business transactions.
