CESTAT Ahmedabad held that recovery under Section 28AAA cannot proceed unless FPS scrips are cancelled by DGFT. In absence of cancellation, duty demand and penalties were set aside.
The High Court held that once income is duly recorded in an Income Tax Return, the Tribunal need not examine the source of income in accident claims. Compensation was enhanced by applying correct multiplier and future prospects.
The Kerala High Court held that a time-barred appeal under Section 107 cannot be bypassed through a writ petition. Disputed issues of service of orders were found unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that Leave Travel Concession involving foreign travel falls outside Section 10(5) exemption. Employers must deduct TDS where LTC journeys include foreign legs or deviate from the shortest domestic route.
Finding that the appellate authority failed to address the petitioner s objections, the Court quashed the rejection of the technical bid as arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the PCIT granted only a signature without recording satisfaction, violating the statutory requirement of prior approval.
The Calcutta High Court set aside a reassessment order under Sections 148A(3) and 148, holding that the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to respond, even though notice was served at the consultant’s email address.
The Karnataka High Court held that consolidating multiple financial years into a single show cause notice under Section 74 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The impugned notice was quashed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.
The ITAT Delhi held that merely because additions were sustained in quantum proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot automatically follow. The Revenue must independently prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT Kolkata held that revision under Section 263 was invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined service tax liability and depreciation claims during assessment. The order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
