The ruling examined whether an enzyme-based premix used only in animal feed should be treated as an enzyme or a feed preparation. The Authority held that exclusive use as an animal feed premix justified classification under Heading 2309 rather than the enzyme heading.
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credit addition cannot survive once identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness are established through documentary evidence. The key takeaway is that mere low income of creditors is insufficient without contrary investigation.
The Tribunal held that delayed responses to statutory notices do not attract penalty when full compliance is ultimately made and accepted before assessment completion. The key takeaway is that penalties cannot be imposed mechanically in the absence of willful default.
Tribunal held that cash found and seized cannot be treated as unexplained when it is fully reflected in audited books and not disproved by tax authority. Additions under Section 69A cannot rest on suspicion alone.
ITAT Hyderabad held that final assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by AO beyond the time limit provided under Section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that since all the ingredients of commission of an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the NI Act were duly satisfied. Thus, Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the NI Act. However, sentence is reduced to six months imprisonment.
Delhi High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] cannot merely approve the conclusion of TPO without giving independent findings. Accordingly, writ dismissed as no substantial question arise in the petition.
The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that dismissing appeals in limine without examining reasons for delay was improper. It restored the matters for fresh consideration, stressing that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that post–Finance Act, 2024, an 80G application can be filed any time after commencement of activities. Rejection solely for delay was set aside and the application was restored for fresh consideration.
