DRAT Allahabad set aside the DRT order for not examining the borrower’s plea of non-service of Section 13 notice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper hearing.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the DRT’s direction to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs, finding no infirmity in the interim order. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
The Tribunal sustained attachment of Rs. 1 crore under the Benami law but remanded the case for further investigation, citing insufficient proof to prosecute.
The Rajasthan High Court directed release of confiscated arecanuts upon furnishing security equal to the invoice value, holding that merits of the Section 130 demand must be examined separately within three months.
The Tribunal held that preloaded software formed part of imported hardware and must be included in assessable value. However, extended limitation and penalties were quashed due to absence of suppression.
The Court held that assessment for FY 2024–25 cannot be passed under Section 74 after its omission by amendment. The order was quashed and directed to be treated as a show cause notice.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that reassessment beyond three years requires sanction under Section 151(ii). Notices issued with approval from the wrong authority were invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment beyond three years requires approval under Section 151(ii). Notices issued with approval from the wrong authority were set aside.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s plea and affirmed that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines.
The High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines. ITAT’s demand of TCS, interest, and penalty was set aside.
