The dispute concerned profits alleged to arise from non-genuine option trades. The Tribunal held that reassessment failed because the AO did not independently examine or correlate the information to the assessee’s case.
The Court ruled that expenses on replantation and upkeep are revenue in nature and eligible for deduction. It followed the Full Bench decision which overruled the earlier restrictive interpretation.
HC held that Section 28 of Customs Act does not mandate communication of an extension order for adjudication. Delayed adjudication was upheld, leaving importer to pursue statutory appeal.
The court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80-HHC can be claimed simultaneously, subject only to an overall cap of 100% of business profits.
The High Court held that disputes involving alleged fraudulent ITC availment should be examined in statutory appeal proceedings. Writ jurisdiction was declined, with protection granted against limitation if appeal is filed in time.
The Court held that electrically operated golf carts were exempt from Infrastructure Cess under the applicable notification. Re-assessment was directed as a prerequisite to refund where excess duty was paid due to a technical EDI error.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹50 lakh customs penalty, holding that a co-accused’s statement, without independent corroboration, cannot justify penal action under the Customs Act.
The Tribunal ruled that an unsigned and undated draft agreement seized from a third party cannot justify an addition for unexplained investment without corroborative evidence.
HC found that ITC was allowed without addressing findings of paper transactions and returned payments. Matter was remanded for fresh consideration by Tribunal.
The Court held that provisional attachment could not continue once the underlying tax demand was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, rendering the attachment unsustainable.
