The case examined whether reassessment proceedings could survive when issued outside the faceless mechanism. The ruling confirms that non-compliance with the faceless scheme is a fatal jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal ruled that amounts paid during investigation cannot be retained once the demand is set aside. Only lawful assessments can justify retention, and illegal collections must be refunded with interest.
The issue was whether delayed filing of Form 10B bars exemption for a charitable trust. The Tribunal held the delay to be procedural and sustained exemption since audit was completed and report filed during appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that a 3,134-day delay deserved condonation where the assessee proved non-service of the assessment order. The key takeaway is that absence of service constitutes sufficient cause and justice cannot be denied on limitation alone.
The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) based on a forged revised return is appealable. It directed a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to file the correct return, reaffirming that technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice.
The Tribunal held that a bona fide delay caused by genuine circumstances deserves condonation. The key takeaway is that technical limitation cannot override substantive justice.
The Bombay High Court dismissed an income tax appeal where the disputed claim was below the monetary threshold, highlighting that low tax effect alone can justify disposal when no exception applies.
The issue was whether inverter components used in electric vehicles could be treated as motor vehicle parts. CAAR ruled that electrical machinery is excluded from Chapter 87, confirming classification under Chapter 85.
CAAR held that a magnesium- and zinc-based micronutrient product cannot be treated as “other fertilizer” under Chapter 31 since phosphorus was present only in insignificant quantity.
The issue was whether Section 74 penalties apply when tax is paid later but monthly returns were not filed. SC upheld that wilful suppression through non-filing justifies penalty despite subsequent payment.
