The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in rectifying its earlier order because the amendment to Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) operated retrospectively from 01.04.1968. The appeals were dismissed and the issue was decided against the assessee.
The Delhi High Court upheld deletion of additions after authorities under the Black Money Act concluded that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the foreign assets. The Court held that a protective assessment could not survive on those facts.
The Bombay High Court held that a 13-day delay in filing Form 10-IC should be condoned where eligibility for Section 115BAA was undisputed. The Court ruled that procedural requirements cannot override substantive statutory benefits.
The Court found that the tax treatment of advance sale of room nights had already been addressed in earlier decisions concerning the same assessee. The Revenue failed to show any reason for a different outcome.
The Uttarakhand High Court set aside a GST assessment order after finding that the personal hearing was scheduled before the last date for filing a reply. The Court held that such a hearing was illusory and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that TDS certificates and income tax filings established a prima facie jural relationship between the parties. It granted interim protection after finding that the respondent could not deny a relationship previously acknowledged before tax authorities.
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte GST assessment order after the appeal period had expired. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply to the show cause notice.
The Court held that although notices were sent to the address available in PAN and passport records, the reassessment order could not stand because the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessment, demand notices, penalties, and recovery proceedings were set aside.
The Madras High Court held that reimbursements made to a foreign subsidiary for online advertising expenses were not included within the statutory scope of equalisation levy. The refund rejection order was set aside for reconsideration.
The High Court held that the statutory requirement of issuing a draft assessment order could not be bypassed by issuing a final order accompanied by tax demand and penalty proceedings.
