The court held that Ombudsman’s finding of customer negligence was unsustainable and directed bank to refund disputed amount. The ruling clarifies that refund may be ordered when adjudication fails to consider material records.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid where the faceless system applies. It quashed the reassessment proceedings and confirmed that such notices must be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer.
The Court remanded an ex-parte GST demand order after the petitioner could not respond due to a parent’s serious illness. This case underlines that unavoidable circumstances can merit reconsideration of tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the notice failed to specify whether the charge was concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ruling confirms that ambiguity in penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) is fatal.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was taken from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT. The ruling reiterates that the 2023 amendment to Section 151 cannot be applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that once purchases are proven bogus, the entire amount must be added back, rejecting the CIT(A)’s 8% profit estimation. The ruling confirms that unexplained expenditure cannot be allowed under section 69C.
The Court ruled that Section 148 notices issued by the local Assessing Officer, following orders under Section 148A(d), are legally valid. It rejected arguments that such notices must be issued facelessly under the 2022 Scheme. This establishes that notice issuance and faceless assessment are distinct processes.
The Delhi High Court quashed charges against the petitioner in a corruption case, finding intercepted calls insufficient to establish grave suspicion of conspiracy.
The Court held that intercepted calls and investigation records did not establish demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. It affirmed that no material linked the accused to the alleged conspiracy, upholding the quashing of charges.
Delhi High Court ruled that a pre-deposit made under the Central Excise head satisfies the statutory requirement when the Service Tax portal is non-functional, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.
