SC held that a cooperative bank was not employer of canteen workers engaged by a society within its premises. It laid down factors to determine employer–employee status, emphasising contractual and control analysis.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 on issues beyond scope of limited scrutiny, setting aside revision order as invalid.
Supreme Court held that informing an arrestee’s spouse or recording diary entries is no substitute for directly informing the accused of grounds of arrest.
Court held that pre-show cause consultation is not required when the case is booked for evasion or suppression, and advised the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies.
Observing that the revisional authority failed to properly assess the taxpayer’s material in the ₹3.6 crore case, the High Court directed a fresh decision after full consideration.
The Tribunal ruled that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (own capital and unsecured loans) to cover the advances given, thus breaking the presumed nexus with interest-bearing funds. This decision reinforces the principle that disallowance is impermissible when the taxpayer possesses adequate non-interest-bearing capital for making advances.
The Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award delivered nearly four years after hearings ended, holding that such unexplained delay violates fairness and public policy. A fresh arbitration was ordered before a new tribunal.
SC clarified that under Section 23(2) of RTE Act, teachers appointed before March 2015 could obtain TET qualification within four years of 2017 amendment. Since appellants did so, their termination after six years was unjustified.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside an order that rejected an exporter’s supplementary claim for Swatch Bharat Cess (SBC) refund. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has no bar on filing multiple refund claims for the same period.
CESTAT Delhi set aside an appellate order, holding that the time limit for filing an appeal starts from the date the rectification of mistake order (Section 74) is passed. The appeal was therefore deemed filed within the prescribed limitation period.
