The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling that reassessment under Section 147 lacked a valid basis. The courts found that the assessee had never claimed Section 10(38) exemption on the alleged penny stock gains.
The Supreme Court held that a later judgment modifying the legal position cannot, by itself, justify review of concluded cases. Relying on Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it dismissed the review petition and refused liberty to seek review.
The Supreme Court held that a stay on recovery proceedings only suspends enforcement and does not wipe out the obligation to pay interest on excise arrears. The beneficiary of an interim order must restore the successful party to the position it would have occupied otherwise.
The Supreme Court held that final judgments cannot be reviewed merely because the legal position later changes. It ruled that the overruling of an earlier precedent does not satisfy the requirements for review under Order XLVII CPC.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail in a GST matter involving liability below ₹5 crore. The ruling reaffirmed that offences falling below the statutory threshold are treated as non-cognizable and bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with concurrent findings of guilt, holding that revisional courts have limited powers to reappreciate evidence. It also upheld the direction that multiple sentences should run concurrently.
The Supreme Court held that disputed explanations regarding assets and loans must be examined during trial and cannot form the basis for discharge. The High Court’s order discharging the accused was set aside.
The Supreme Court held that filing Form 3AA during assessment proceedings constituted sufficient compliance, even though it was not submitted with the return. The ruling clarifies that delayed filing before the final assessment order does not automatically defeat the claim.
The Court noted that the Revenue had not submitted any claim during the insolvency resolution process for the relevant assessment years. Following established precedent, the appeals were dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that failure to offer fit-out possession within the contractually agreed period entitled homebuyers to terminate the agreement and seek a refund with interest. Consumer fora cannot override express contractual rights.
