The Tribunal ruled that section 220(2) interest cannot be charged where the original demand notice showed nil demand, holding that interest arises only after a valid section 156 notice.
Supreme Court held that deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act is not general exemption. Such deduction is specific incentive attached strictly to the profits arising from a defined activity namely, the provision of long-term finance.
Allahabad High Court held that writ petition under Article 226 is not be maintainable if there is an alternative remedy under different jurisdiction of the same High Court. Accordingly, writ by developers challenging concurrent orders of Consumer Commissions dismissed.
The Tribunal ruled that the appellate authority erred by admitting new documents without a Rule 46A application or giving the Assessing Officer a chance to rebut them.
The issue was whether reassessment and appellate orders could stand when participation was ineffective and grounds remained undecided. The Tribunal ruled that justice required restoration of the case to the Assessing Officer.
The issue was whether CBDT monetary limits barred the revenue appeal. The Court held that organised tax evasion and accommodation entry cases are carved out exceptions, defeating the low tax effect argument.
The High Court held that further recovery should be halted where a rectification application against a GST order is pending and substantial tax has already been recovered. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide rectification within a fixed timeframe.
The High Court held that the appellate authority failed to consider material documents placed on record while rejecting a GST appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after proper evaluation of evidence.
The High Court held that delay caused by illness of a partner should have been condoned where the fact was not disputed. The appellate authority’s dismissal of the GST appeal on limitation alone was set aside.
The dispute involved taxing a foreign investment as unexplained income. The Tribunal clarified that Section 69 applies only where investments are not recorded in books or the source remains unexplained.
