The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Insurance Company cannot avoid liability without producing evidence showing absence of a valid driving licence. The Court also upheld compensation based on gross salary and enhanced amounts under conventional heads.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153. The Court ruled that procedural remand directions did not extend limitation under Section 153(6).
CESTAT Bangalore upheld penalty under Section 112(b) after finding that the Customs Broker knowingly arranged transportation of duty-free imported goods to locations not permitted under advance licences. The Tribunal held that such conduct amounted to aiding violation of customs conditions.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of cross-examination in a case based on third-party statements and seized records violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment after granting the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessee cannot be taxed on excess income wrongly declared in the return due to inadvertent error. The Tribunal deleted the Section 69A addition after accepting agricultural income evidence.
The ITAT Delhi held that undisclosed income declared under IDS-2016 but unpaid within prescribed time must be taxed in the year of declaration, not the original assessment year. The reassessment addition for AY 2013-14 was deleted.
The Bombay High Court directed constitution of a special NCLT Bench after an insolvency petition remained pending despite being reserved for orders twice. The Court held that delay frustrated the purpose of IBC proceedings.
Tribunal ruled that construction services relating to employee residential colonies were outside scope of commercial or industrial construction services during relevant period.
The ITAT Kolkata held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 is only a procedural defect and cannot deprive an assessee of Foreign Tax Credit under Section 90 and the India-USA DTAA.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals after observing that the classification dispute had already been settled in an earlier judgment upheld by the Court. The ruling confirms reliance on the precedent followed by CESTAT.
