The issue was whether reassessment can proceed without disclosing full allegations to the taxpayer. The Court held that failure to provide an opportunity to respond violates natural justice. The key takeaway is that reassessment notices must clearly communicate all grounds.
The issue was whether the insolvency application was time-barred. The Tribunal held that balance sheet entries and revival letters extend limitation under law. The key takeaway is that acknowledgment of debt can revive limitation periods.
The issue was whether sale of agricultural land attracts capital gains tax. The Tribunal held that land situated beyond prescribed municipal limits is not a capital asset. The key takeaway is that location plays a decisive role in taxability.
The issue was whether interest on FDRs qualifies for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal held that such income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction. The key takeaway is that interest from cooperative institutions can qualify for exemption.
The issue was whether a single satisfaction note can cover multiple assessment years under Section 153C. The Tribunal held that absence of year-wise satisfaction renders the proceedings invalid. The key takeaway is that jurisdiction requires specific satisfaction for each year.
The case involved detention of goods where the taxpayer cited vehicle breakdown as the cause of delay. The court quashed the order for non-consideration of the reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The case involved conflicting reasons between the show-cause notice and final order, with no proper consideration of the reply. The court held such inconsistency invalid and restored the registration.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond the statutory six-year limitation period is invalid. It ruled that expired limitation cannot be revived through later amendments, rendering the reassessment void.
The issue involved whether concessional customs duty applies to inputs scrapped during manufacturing. The ruling held that absence of explicit provision under applicable rules prevents extension of benefit, reinforcing strict interpretation of exemption notifications.
The court held that reassessment notices for A.Y. 2015–16 issued after 1 April 2021 are invalid based on the Revenue’s concession before the Supreme Court. All consequential proceedings were set aside.
