The Court considered a request to permit limited operation of a frozen account for salary payments. It deferred interim relief and directed disclosure of employee details for respondent’s verification.
The Tribunal set aside rejection of charitable registration where activities were not examined on merits. The case underscores that authorities must assess genuineness of activities before denying registration.
SC dismissed the Revenue’s delayed appeal, letting stand the ruling that only the recognised PGP course qualifies for service tax exemption. Other executive and specialised programmes remained taxable.
The Tribunal held that only the recognised PGP course qualified for exemption. Other management programmes were taxable as they were not shown to be recognised by law.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision dismissing a revision filed after nearly seven years. It affirmed that unexplained and excessive delay defeats relief under Section 264.
The High Court upheld rejection of a belated revision filed nearly seven years after rectification denial. It ruled that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the inordinate delay.
The court held that a reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the faceless assessment scheme. As a result, the notice and the consequential assessment order were set aside, subject to liberty if higher courts take a different view.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
The case examined whether a General Power of Attorney could be treated as a Joint Development Agreement for taxing capital gains. The Tribunal held that a GPA does not amount to a transfer, leading to deletion of the addition.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked when the Assessing Officer had accepted a legally possible view. The Tribunal held that where two views exist and the AO adopts one, the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
