Bombay High Court held that writ petition cannot be entertained in the face of availability of alternative remedy of approaching the NCLAT since claim of violation of principles of natural justice not established. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that reasonable belief of smuggling based on clandestine conduct and scientific purity of metal is justifiable. Accordingly, absolute confiscation of gold upheld as reasonable belief for seizure u/s. 123 duly established.
The issue involved treating cash deposits as unexplained despite being part of recorded sales. The Tribunal held that taxing the same income again results in impermissible double taxation.
The court set aside GST orders after finding both original and appellate proceedings were effectively ex-parte. It held that the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice before adjudication.
The Tribunal addressed denial of leave encashment exemption restricted to ₹3 lakh. It held that the revised CBDT limit of ₹25 lakh applies, allowing full exemption within the threshold.
The tribunal upheld rejection of a resolution applicant’s EOI for not meeting the minimum net worth requirement set by the CoC. It ruled that MSME status does not exempt compliance with eligibility criteria fixed under IBC.
The Court held that payments cannot be denied credit merely because they were recorded under different accounting heads. It ruled that substantive relief under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme must prevail over technical classifications.
The Court directed the jurisdictional authority to consider the delay condonation request after PAN transfer. It held that the application must be decided in accordance with law.
The case addresses whether discrepancies between ITR/Form 26AS and ST-3 returns can justify a Service Tax demand. The Tribunal held that without independent verification, such demands are unsustainable and must be set aside.
The case examined whether disallowance under section 94(7) should be limited to exempt dividend. The Tribunal held that the provision applies to the full dividend received, rejecting the assessee’s claim.
