The Supreme Court ruled that earlier compensation was inadequate and raised the award to ₹15.13 lakh, ensuring fair restitution for a minor’s lifelong disability.
Proforma invoices could not replace commercial invoices prepared after negotiation and accepted by customs. Statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon since the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed and the alleged proforma invoices were not duly proved or corroborated with evidence.
NCLT Delhi held that insolvency of real-estate project is to be held project-specific. Accordingly, order set aside and matter revived before Adjudicating Authority to consider section 7 petition afresh.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) cannot be imposed when TDS delay is due to technical reasons and the assessee has already paid compounding charges and interest.
The tribunal dismissed both assessee and Revenue appeals, confirming that income from accommodation entries can be estimated at 5% of credit entries in the bank. The ruling clarifies that when commissions are claimed on transactions without actual goods delivery, a reasonable percentage can be applied to determine taxable income.
ITAT Delhi upheld that non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to HUDA constitutes default under sections 201(1)/201(1A). Following High Court precedent in Puri Construction, the ruling clarifies that such payments attract TDS under section 194C even without a formal contract.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unsecured loan cannot be sustained since identity of lenders, creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of loan transaction duly proved. Accordingly, CIT(A) order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that there is no circular trading of cut and polished diamonds and gold jewellery exported. Further, also held that revenue has failed to prove misdeclaration. Accordingly, appeals of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal challenging PCIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263, holding that the Commissioner can revise orders even when the matter is pending before CIT(A). Key takeaway: jurisdiction under Sec. 263 extends to unresolved appeals.
Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by annulling assessment without addressing issue of alleged bogus purchases and directed a denovo adjudication on merits in compliance with Section 250(4) and (6).
