DRI had jurisdiction and was empowered under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue show cause notices (SCN) proceedings for recovery of drawback amounts peculiarly cases involving fraudulent or erroneous grant of drawback.
The High Court refused bail in a GST case involving allegations of operating multiple non-existent firms to pass on fake ITC worth over ₹315 crore, holding that economic offences warrant a strict approach.
Professional fees and foreign branch expenses incurred by a strategic investment company were allowable under Section 37(1) in the absence of any finding that the expenditure was excessive, unreasonable
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s quashing of a reassessment notice, holding that reopening based only on existing records was invalid and refusing to condone a 426-day delay.
High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the notice was based only on existing records, with no new material to justify reopening of the completed scrutiny assessment.
The appeal was dismissed solely on procedural grounds without hearing the assessee. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide appeals on merits after granting a proper opportunity.
The Tribunal examined whether Section 153A could be applied to the search year itself. It held that invoking Section 153A for the wrong assessment year was invalid, rendering the assessment void.
The Tribunal held that reopening after four years is invalid without alleging failure to disclose material facts. The reassessment was barred by the proviso to section 147.
The Tribunal held that rural agricultural land excluded from capital asset under Section 2(14) cannot be taxed under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). Addition based on stamp duty valuation was therefore deleted in full.
The Tribunal held that serving notices on an outdated email ID violates principles of natural justice. The assessment was set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication after proper service.
