The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order for relying on a non-existent quasi-judicial income tax order. The key takeaway is that the matter must be reconsidered afresh following settled competition law principles.
The issue was whether penalty for bogus purchases was justified. The Tribunal held that concealment through non-genuine purchases attracts penalty, confirming the levy.
The issue was validity of reopening beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held the notice issued after the prescribed time was invalid, and quashed the entire reassessment.
A.K.G. Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Termination Valid, Blacklisting Invalid – SC Separates Consequences, Enforces Strict Natural Justice The Supreme Court upheld the termination of contract but set aside the blacklisting order, holding that blacklisting is not an automatic consequence of termination and requires independent […]
The issue was whether income from sale of foundation seeds qualifies as agricultural income. The Tribunal held that such activities involve basic agricultural operations and allowed exemption under Section 10(1).
The issue was addition of cash deposits during demonetisation as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that the assessee’s explanation supported by affidavit was credible, leading to deletion of the addition.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear and substantiate claims despite multiple opportunities. It emphasized that procedural non-compliance weakens legal claims.
The tribunal ruled that rejection of Section 54F deduction was premature as the assessee later produced relevant documents. It directed reassessment to verify evidence and ensure proper hearing.
The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)’s decision for wrongly quashing assessment due to lack of notice under Section 143(2). It held that Section 263 proceedings are a continuation of original assessment.
The issue was whether multiple medical bills constituted a single transaction under Section 269ST. The Tribunal held that separately billed services are independent transactions, so penalty was not justified.
