The Calcutta High Court held that allegations arising from a financial dispute and strained relations did not satisfy the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court found no prima facie evidence of instigation or intentional provocation.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that proportionate interest disallowance cannot be sustained without establishing a direct nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free advances. The Tribunal deleted the addition as the assessee had sufficient own funds.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment cannot survive when additions are made on issues unrelated to the reasons recorded for reopening. The ruling reinforces that the scope of reassessment must remain confined to the original basis of jurisdiction.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income represented by profit embedded in commodity transactions was only Rs. 4.27 lakh, far below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold under Section 149(1)(b).
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the assessment order in writ proceedings, citing the availability of an effective statutory appeal remedy. The Court held that all factual and legal grounds, including alleged violation of natural justice, can be raised before the appellate authority.
The Telangana High Court set aside the rejection of a GST appeal that had been dismissed on limitation grounds despite being filed within the 45-day period granted by an earlier High Court order. The ruling underscores that litigants should not suffer for inadvertent procedural lapses.
The Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to file an appeal against a Section 73 order despite the delay in approaching the appellate authority. The Court also directed that no coercive action be taken for two weeks, provided the appeal is filed with the statutory pre-deposit.
ITAT Delhi confirmed disallowance of a Section 80GGC claim after relying on investigation findings that the political party operated as an accommodation entry provider. The ruling emphasizes substance over form in tax deduction claims.
The Supreme Court held that a later judgment modifying the legal position cannot, by itself, justify review of concluded cases. Relying on Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it dismissed the review petition and refused liberty to seek review.
The Tribunal ruled that non-deduction of tax pursuant to subsisting High Court directions cannot attract liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A). The key takeaway is that employers cannot be penalized for obeying judicial mandates.
