The Tribunal held that cash deposits representing trading receipts cannot be taxed in full as unexplained income. Only the estimated profit portion was directed to be assessed.
The High Court held that the tax department cannot deny set-off of short-term capital loss when the same claim was accepted in factually identical connected cases. Consistency in tax treatment was upheld.
The court examined a challenge to a DIR-12 filing that removed multiple directors without consent and held that the form was prima facie defective, directing fresh consideration after hearing all parties.
CESTAT held that limitation under Rule 15 starts from communication of re-valuation, making the supplementary drawback claim filed within three months valid.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey, when arising from regular business activity and disclosed in accounts, cannot be taxed as unexplained investment under Section 69B.
The court held that delay in seeking a TDS refund could be condoned where tax was deducted due to an error, and directed authorities to examine the refund claim on merits.
The Bombay High Court held that vague allegations of natural justice violations cannot justify skipping the appellate remedy under the Customs Act.
The issue was whether expiry of the revocation timeline bars restoration of GST registration. The Court ruled that authorities can restore registration when pending returns and full tax liabilities are cleared as per Rule 22.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalties cannot be imposed when there is no evidence that the CHA manager knowingly aided mis-declaration or ineligible drawback claims.
The Tribunal held that seizure based only on presumption and driver statements was invalid. Authorities failed to prove attempted export through non-specified routes.
