The ruling clarifies that reopening for AY 2016–17 must comply with the correct sanctioning authority requirement. Non-compliance invalidates the notice and all consequential actions under the Act.
ITAT held that additions relying merely on investigation wing reports and retracted statements, without direct incriminating evidence, violate settled principles governing Section 153A proceedings.
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
Since the investment was examined and accepted in scrutiny proceedings for AY 2015–16, the Revenue could not re-characterize the cost during the sale year. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld full LTCG exemption.
NAV approach using prevailing market value of land, the fair market value exceeded the issue price. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s reliance on book value was unjustified and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that commission earned for promoting foreign universities qualifies as export of services and does not fall within Rule 2(f) definition of intermediary service. Demand, interest, and penalties were set aside.
The Court held that allegations of forged extension and duress require factual examination by the Adjudicating Authority, maintaining status quo on seized gold and cash.
The High Court granted a second opportunity after finding that assessment orders were passed without reply, as notices were sent to an old employee’s email ID.
The Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely because the supplier failed to deposit GST, applying the reading down principle to Section 16(2)(c).
The High Court denied bail, holding that serious allegations of loan diversion through shell entities were supported by bank records and witness statements. The petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
