The Court ruled that refund claims under inverted duty structure cannot be restricted using the earlier anomalous formula once Rule 89(5) was amended to remove inconsistencies. The authorities were directed to reconsider the refund claims under the amended provisions.
The court held that only the income component of alleged bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire transaction. It upheld the Tribunal’s restriction of addition to 6%. The ruling reinforces limits on full disallowance.
The High Court ruled that reopening based on unrelated and non-specific seized material is not permissible. It concluded that no prima facie belief of income escapement could be formed. The decision highlights limits on the use of indirect evidence.
The case addresses the continued failure to release ITR utilities on time despite earlier court directions. The Court adjourned the matter after CBDT failed to file a required affidavit, highlighting ongoing compliance gaps.
High Court held that consideration received on transfer of self-generated trademarks before 1 April 2002 was not taxable as capital gains because no ascertainable cost of acquisition existed, making computation provisions unworkable.
The Court examined whether ITC can be denied when the supplier fails to deposit tax. It upheld the provision, ruling that ITC depends on actual tax payment to the Government. The key takeaway is that purchaser compliance alone is insufficient without supplier tax remittance.
The Court examined whether the matter required immediate intervention. It held that the issues deserved consideration and granted ad-interim relief. This ensures status quo until final adjudication.
The Court held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated solely on third-party data without independent evidence of income escapement. It ruled that such reopening amounts to suspicion and lacks the required “reason to believe.”
The court upheld ₹50,000 monthly maintenance after finding insufficient evidence of reduced income. It ruled that inability claims must be substantiated and cannot defeat maintenance obligations.
The issue involved stringent deposit conditions imposed while granting bail in cheque dishonour cases. The High Court held such conditions excessive and reduced the requirement to 20% of the cheque amount.
