The Tribunal held that once sale receipts are accepted as consideration from immovable property, they cannot be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A. The assessment was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of declared value and re-determination of the same merely on presumptions and assumptions without independent evidence is not sustainable in law and hence liable to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that inadvertent error in shipping bills, which are permitted to be corrected under section 149 of the Customs Act, cannot be allowed to defeat substantive claim of exports under MEIS. Accordingly, writ disposed of with direction to re-consider the claim.
ITAT Indore held that trust has passed resolution dealing with dissolution and utilization of assets in event of dissolution. Accordingly, the said resolution must be accepted by CIT(E) for granting final approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. Thus, matter remanded to the file of CIT(E).
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that JDA-related income issues had already attained finality. Any attempt to reassess the same income in an earlier year would result in impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal held that additions made without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice violate CBDT instructions and natural justice. Key takeaway: Procedural compliance is essential for valid assessments.
The Tribunal ruled that advisory and consultancy services could not be taxed as Fees for Included Services because no technical knowledge was transferred to clients.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years was void because approval was taken from an incompetent authority. The key takeaway is strict compliance with section 151(ii) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
The Court held that export consignments are regulated by the Foreign Trade Policy, not domestic food safety norms. FSSAI standards cannot be enforced unless expressly incorporated into the FTP.
The court ruled that insisting on a flat 20% deposit to grant stay is illegal, holding that authorities must exercise discretion under Section 220(6) after considering merits and hardship.
