The Court held that recovery could be stayed and bank attachment lifted if 20% of the disputed amount is deposited, directing the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal on merits.
The Court remanded multiple GST assessment orders where the taxpayer failed to reply to show cause notices, subject to a 50% pre-deposit. A separate penalty order for delayed returns was upheld.
The Tribunal held that declaring viscose fabric while importing polyester amounted to mis-declaration, justifying rejection of transaction value, confiscation, and penalty equal to duty evaded.
The Tribunal held that a manufacturing company failing the 75% trading turnover filter applied by the TPO cannot be retained as a comparable. Dilution of the filter by the DRP only to accommodate one entity was found impermissible, leading to deletion of the comparable.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), subject to verification of amounts.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated without material showing income had escaped assessment. The Court held that mere allegations of circuitous transactions were insufficient. The key takeaway is that actual escapement is mandatory under the amended law.
The Tribunal found that additions for securities transactions may overlap with amounts already accepted by the tax authority. The matter was remitted to the AO for factual verification before sustaining any addition.
The SC held that pending settlement proceedings do not bar restoration of income tax appeals. ITAT was justified in condoning delay and reviving appeals, subject to keeping them in abeyance.
The court upheld restoration of appeals where earlier dismissal was without merits due to settlement proceedings. Delay condonation and remand were held valid with no jurisdictional error.
The SC refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling that reassessment notices issued on incorrect facts and without supporting material were invalid. The key takeaway is that mechanical reopening cannot survive judicial scrutiny.
