Tribunal clarified that the Section 251 amendment uses the term ‘may set aside,’ meaning it is discretionary. Since the issue was already resolved in remand, addition was deleted.
The Court held that the tax authority wrongly dismissed a delay condonation plea without considering the assessee’s serious medical condition. The ruling emphasizes that genuine hardship must be evaluated liberally under Section 119(2)(b).
Assessments on foreign-sourced income were deleted after the ITAT confirmed the assessee’s Non-Resident status under Explanation 1(a) of Section 6(1).
The Court held that the delay in paying redemption fine, arising during the COVID-19 period, could be condoned. It ordered implementation of the original decision allowing re-export of the seized gold.
The Court held that ownership of detained gold bangles was disputed, making a writ petition inappropriate. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
The Gujarat High Court held that the assessee disclosed all material facts and the reopening notice under section 148/147 was a change of opinion, lacking jurisdiction.
Court held that C-Forms could not be refused solely because inter-state purchases were mistakenly omitted from revised returns. The ruling directs issuance of Forms as transactions were genuine and no revenue loss occurred.
Tribunal held that denying opportunity to submit evidence amounts to potential miscarriage of justice. CIT(A) directed to reconsider income addition after evaluating all documents.
ITAT held that appeals filed with incorrect jurisdiction cannot be heard. All four appeals dismissed, but assessee allowed to refile before correct bench.
ITAT ruled that Section 201 proceedings initiated beyond four years are legally untenable. Since the 201(1) order for AY 2016-17 was issued after the limitation period, the entire TDS demand was deleted. Tribunal held that date of knowledge is irrelevant for limitation.
