The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld deletion of ₹15.94 crore addition after finding no adverse material supporting allegations of suppressed production and unaccounted sales. The Court reaffirmed that assessments cannot be based on mere assumptions or estimated yield comparisons.
The NCLT Mumbai approved a resolution plan after holding that EPFO claims based on provisional and pro-rata calculations without adjudication under Sections 7A, 7Q, and 14B could not be admitted in CIRP. The ruling clarified that only crystallized statutory liabilities determined through due process are admissible.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had already made additions on the exact issue for which reassessment was reopened. The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The Tribunal held that documents relating to payments made to suppliers such as TS MARKFED and Sri Venkateshwara Agencies required proper verification. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Mumbai CESTAT set aside a service tax demand after finding that the Show Cause Notice failed to identify the relevant sub-clause under Business Auxiliary Services. The Tribunal held that such vagueness violated principles of natural justice and invalidated the entire proceeding.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging pay stepping-up relief granted to senior employees. The ruling left intact the Rajasthan High Court and CAT orders directing removal of salary anomalies between seniors and juniors.
The Rajasthan High Court upheld CAT Jaipur’s order granting stepping up of pay to senior employees after noting that similar issues had already been decided by the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. The court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s directions.
The High Court held that further custodial detention was unnecessary where the complaint had already been filed and investigation against the petitioners had substantially concluded. Bail was granted subject to conditions against influencing witnesses.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail after noting that none of the 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined despite the accused being in custody since May 2025. The Court held that prolonged incarceration pending trial was not justified.
Court reiterated that gravity of economic offences alone is insufficient to deny bail in every case. It emphasized that bail remains the rule unless exceptional circumstances exist.
