Tripura High Court acquitted the accused after finding the complainant failed to prove financial capacity and valid statutory notice under Section 138 NI Act.
CESTAT held that customs value cannot be re-determined under Rule 8 without first exhausting Rules 5 to 7A, resulting in most duty demands being set aside.
The Chhattisgarh High Court declined to direct the Income Tax Department to investigate alleged tax evasion after noting that the Tax Evasion Petition had already been rejected as barred by limitation. It held that no writ of mandamus could be issued on the facts of the case.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that royalty payments should continue to be benchmarked under TNMM by following earlier decisions in the assessees own case. It found no reason to replace TNMM with CUP where identical facts had already been decided. The Department’s transfer pricing challenge was therefore dismissed.
ITAT upheld taxation of IPS and CEV subsidies following the Section 2(24) amendment, while partly allowing the appeal on other issues.
SC issued notice after the High Court quashed the faceless assessment for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 144B.
SC upheld the finding of Section 144B violation but remanded the matter for a fresh assessment after following due procedure.
Bombay High Court held the assessment was non est as no mandatory draft assessment order was issued under Section 144B.
CESTAT Sets Aside Service Tax Demand Because Extended Limitation Could Not Be Invoked
The Allahabad High Court held that additional evidence cannot be admitted by the CIT(A) without recording reasons and giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to rebut it. It upheld the Tribunal’s decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration under Rule 46A.
