The issue was mis-declaration of quantity, value, and classification of imported goods. The Tribunal upheld reassessment and duty demand as the importer admitted discrepancies.
The Court found that the appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on delay without examining the reasons provided. It held that such non-consideration renders the order unsustainable and directed fresh adjudication.
The Court emphasized the need for fair opportunity before finalizing tax demands. The petitioner was allowed to respond to the show-cause notice in fresh proceedings.
The issue involved denial of refund on the ground that services were intermediary in nature. The Court held that absence of findings on the agreement and nature of services invalidated the order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper analysis.
The issue involved whether fresh scrutiny could be initiated after filing a modified return under Section 170A. The Court held that where assessment is already completed, the AO can only modify income to give effect to reorganisation.
The Court set aside the Tribunals order as it relied on a precedent later reversed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded for fresh determination based on correct legal principles.
The Tribunal held that washing, screening, and impurity removal convert ore into concentrate under deeming provisions. As a result, exemption applicable only to ores was denied.
The Tribunal held that mere classification of shares as penny stock is insufficient to deny LTCG exemption. In absence of evidence linking the assessee to manipulation, the addition under Section 69A was deleted.
The Supreme Court issued notice on whether the High Court’s ruling effectively reintroduces a verification requirement under amended Section 148A. The case raises questions on the scope of reassessment powers.
The tribunal held that exemption under Notification No. 42/2012 cannot be denied when substantive conditions are met. Minor procedural lapses were found insufficient to reject the claim.
