The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that procedural defects should not obstruct substantive justice where no serious prejudice is caused.
The Delhi High Court held that shareholders of a foreign company cannot be taxed on the company’s rental income and capital gains merely because they hold all its shares. The Court reiterated that a company is a separate legal entity unless fraud or sham arrangements are proved.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under Section 69A could not survive when based solely on a third-party statement without granting cross-examination. The Tribunal ruled that denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice.
The Mumbai ITAT held that assessment proceedings conducted in the name of a deceased person are legally void once the department is informed about the death. Both the assessment and appellate orders were quashed as nullities.
The Pune ITAT ruled that purchases cannot automatically be disallowed merely because suppliers failed to reply to notices issued under Section 133(6). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh verification after considering documentary evidence produced by the assessee.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Insurance Company cannot avoid liability without producing evidence showing absence of a valid driving licence. The Court also upheld compensation based on gross salary and enhanced amounts under conventional heads.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153. The Court ruled that procedural remand directions did not extend limitation under Section 153(6).
CESTAT Bangalore upheld penalty under Section 112(b) after finding that the Customs Broker knowingly arranged transportation of duty-free imported goods to locations not permitted under advance licences. The Tribunal held that such conduct amounted to aiding violation of customs conditions.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of cross-examination in a case based on third-party statements and seized records violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment after granting the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessee cannot be taxed on excess income wrongly declared in the return due to inadvertent error. The Tribunal deleted the Section 69A addition after accepting agricultural income evidence.
