The Court upheld exemption from customs duty and AIDC for consignments landing by 30 June 2023 with qualifying Bills of Lading. Refunds were directed as per law.
The court upheld the quashing of a reassessment notice where the reasons were based on vague portal information without a live nexus to income escapement. The ruling reiterates that reopening cannot rest on fishing or roving inquiries.
The court held that challenges to deletion of Section 68 additions were factual in nature and raised no substantial question of law, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal.
SC dismissed SLP due to huge delay with costs. HC had quashed reassessment since it was issued despite stay on further proceedings.
The SC held that pending settlement proceedings do not bar restoration of income tax appeals. ITAT was justified in condoning delay and reviving appeals, subject to keeping them in abeyance.
The SC refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling that reassessment notices issued on incorrect facts and without supporting material were invalid. The key takeaway is that mechanical reopening cannot survive judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal solely on account of unexplained delay, leaving the High Court’s decision undisturbed and reinforcing procedural discipline in tax litigation.
The Supreme Court upheld the centralisation of assessments under Section 127, holding that transfer for coordinated investigation following a search was justified. The ruling confirms that disclosed reasons and factual linkage are sufficient to sustain jurisdictional transfer.
The Court admitted the Revenue’s appeal against a tribunal ruling that set aside excise demands as revenue neutral. The key takeaway is that the legal question on valuation under Rules 8 and 9 remains open for final determination.
The Supreme Court held that purchasers who acquire property during pending litigation are bound by the decree and cannot obstruct execution of possession. Transfers made pendente lite remain subservient to the final decree and do not create independent rights against the decree holder.
