The Tribunal examined suspicion surrounding a large cash advance for property. It ruled that suspicion alone cannot replace evidence, and once the transaction is substantiated, section 68 addition must be deleted.
The Tribunal held that a final assessment passed without giving effect to binding DRP directions violates section 144C. Such an order is void ab initio and cannot be sustained once the statutory time limit has expired.
It was ruled that the date of recording the satisfaction note is the deemed search date for a non-searched person. The ten-year limitation must be counted from this date, not from the original search.
The Tribunal deleted both substantive and protective additions made across multiple years on the same alleged receipts. It held that such duplication results in impermissible multiple taxation of identical amounts.
Vedanta Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) CESTAT Chennai Reiterates: Once DGFT Issues EODC, Customs Cannot Deny Advance Authorization Benefits Vedanta Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2026-VIL-158-CESTAT-CHE-CU] The Chennai Bench of the CESTAT has delivered a significant ruling wherein it was held that Customs authorities cannot question or deny duty exemption benefits once DGFT […]
The Court held that once one GST authority initiates proceedings, the other cannot start fresh action on the same subject. State-issued orders were struck down for violating Section 6(2)(b).
The Supreme Court granted bail noting over eight months of pre-trial custody, absence of charge framing, and likely delay in trial. The ruling balances offence gravity with the right to personal liberty.
The Court held that the Revenues challenge failed since the issue had been conclusively decided by the High Court earlier. Deduction under Section 80IA(4) remained available where the assessee was found to be a developer of infrastructure facilities.
The Court held that findings of the appellate authorities clearly established the assessee’s role as a developer. With concurrent factual findings, the appeal was rejected for lack of any substantial legal question.
The issue was whether retention money credited and subjected to TDS accrues as income. SC, noting the HC ruling and IBC closure, left intact the principle that retention money is taxable only when received.
