The Court ruled that reopening based solely on an audit objection amounts to change of opinion if the issue was previously examined. Without fresh tangible material, reassessment proceedings are unsustainable.
NCLAT Delhi held that termination of contract not triggered by the insolvency of Corporate Debtor and therefore not barred by moratorium under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC]. Accordingly, appeal held as devoid of merit.
The AO recorded reasons for escapement without receiving confirmation from the Sub-Registrar. ITAT ruled that absence of tangible evidence vitiated reassessment, making the subsequent Section 263 revision unsustainable.
The ruling emphasized that tax authorities must gather evidence instead of relying on coerced admissions. Additions made purely on surrender statements were struck down for violating CBDT guidelines.
CESTAT Delhi held that since imported helicopter is used for private purpose without any remuneration earned from such flights, there is no substantial compliance of Condition No. 104 of Exemption Notification no. 61 of 2017 dated 03.05.2007. Accordingly, confiscation of helicopter upheld.
The Tribunal emphasized that assumptions based on common names cannot justify major tax additions. Without documentary linkage or banking trail confirmation, the Revenue’s case could not stand.
Kerala High Court held that importer mis-declared semi-dried dates imported by them as fresh dates hence IGST exemption wrongly claimed. Further, importer approached to amend bill of entry only after initiation of proceedings under section 28, accordingly, amendment is not permissible.
The case involved alleged bogus job-work transactions linked to a third party. The Tribunal found the receipts were genuine business income duly audited and taxed, leading to deletion of additions.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. Once adequate inquiry is conducted and a reasonable view is taken, revision is unsustainable.
ITAT held that entire purchases cannot be disallowed when sales and stock are accepted. The addition was rightly restricted to 25% to cover possible inflation.
