The court held that reopening beyond the permissible period was invalid where full disclosures were made and no new material emerged. Reassessment based solely on existing records was ruled time-barred.
The Tribunal held that earning income as a percentage of hospital turnover is commercial, not charitable. Section 80G approval was rightly denied for lack of genuine charitable application.
The High Court quashed a reassessment for A.Y. 2015–16 where the Section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021. Relying on the Revenue’s binding concession before the Supreme Court, all consequential actions were set aside.
The Supreme Court ruled that departmental proceedings initiated after superannuation were invalid due to absence of an enabling provision in service regulations. The key takeaway is that disciplinary jurisdiction ends at retirement unless expressly preserved by law.
The issue was whether mushroom-growing shelves could be classified based on their agricultural end use. The Court held that end use is irrelevant unless the tariff heading expressly permits it. Classification must follow the condition and nature of goods at the time of import.
The Supreme Court held that failure to issue a Section 21 notice does not invalidate arbitration where parties intended to arbitrate all disputes. The ruling clarifies that Section 21 is procedural, not jurisdictional.
Patna High Court held that judgement of conviction of Tax Assistant for accepting bribe to process income tax refund and order of sentence is justified and legal since the prosecution has proved all core points of prosecution story.
The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution for bribery can continue where departmental exoneration was based on procedural gaps. The key takeaway is that only a merits-based exoneration destroying the offence can bar prosecution.
The Court held that electricity generated in an SEZ and supplied domestically is not an import under customs law. In the absence of a charging section, the levy was declared unconstitutional and refunds were ordered.
The Supreme Court ruled that withholding mark sheets and degree for a clerical mismatch is unjustified. Universities must correct their errors without harming students’ careers.
