The Court held that interest income on securities accrues on the due date of payment and not on a daily basis. As the issue was covered by binding precedents, no substantial question of law arose.
The Court held that teaser content indicated possible non-application of mind by CBFC and potential communal disharmony. It directed reconsideration of the revision petition and stayed release for 15 days.
The Tribunal held that a prior judicial decision cannot be classified as additional evidence under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules. Since the issue was already settled and affirmed by the Supreme Court, the remand order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that recovery under Section 28AAA cannot proceed unless FPS scrips are cancelled by DGFT. In absence of cancellation, duty demand and penalties were set aside.
The High Court held that once income is duly recorded in an Income Tax Return, the Tribunal need not examine the source of income in accident claims. Compensation was enhanced by applying correct multiplier and future prospects.
The Kerala High Court held that a time-barred appeal under Section 107 cannot be bypassed through a writ petition. Disputed issues of service of orders were found unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that Leave Travel Concession involving foreign travel falls outside Section 10(5) exemption. Employers must deduct TDS where LTC journeys include foreign legs or deviate from the shortest domestic route.
Finding that the appellate authority failed to address the petitioner s objections, the Court quashed the rejection of the technical bid as arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the PCIT granted only a signature without recording satisfaction, violating the statutory requirement of prior approval.
The Calcutta High Court set aside a reassessment order under Sections 148A(3) and 148, holding that the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to respond, even though notice was served at the consultant’s email address.
