The Court found that the authority acted solely on a recommendation without independent evaluation. It ruled that such action does not meet the statutory requirement of reason to believe.
The court held that solar power system supplies must follow the statutory 70:30 valuation mechanism, rejecting full 18% taxation. It ruled that separate invoicing does not negate eligibility for concessional treatment.
The Court held that failure to consider a remand report acknowledging agricultural income constituted an apparent error, leading to recall of the earlier judgment and remand for fresh adjudication.
The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated after four years based on existing records. It held that reopening founded on a change of opinion is impermissible, and such reassessment was quashed. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The case involved multiple additions challenged by the revenue after relief was granted to the assessee. The Court held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the claims in remand, no substantial question of law survives.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. It ruled that such debatable issues do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reinforces limits on penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classification disputes do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) permits only correction of apparent errors, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s application.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains cannot be disallowed solely on investigation reports and assumptions. It found that documentary evidence and investment history supported genuineness, leading to deletion of additions under Section 68.
The case involved denial of GST refund without following mandatory procedure under Rule 92(3). The Court held that absence of notice and hearing invalidates the rejection and ordered fresh consideration.
