The High Court held that prosecution was invalid because the officer who filed the complaint lacked authority under the sanction granted, reinforcing that sanction is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
The Tribunal held that the tax department cannot substitute actual sale consideration with a notional market price without express legal provision, and deleted the entire addition.
The Tribunal upheld addition of demonetisation cash deposits after rejecting the claim that funds came from old cash withdrawals. Mere assertion of past withdrawals, without evidence of cash retention, was held insufficient.
The Tribunal found the appellate order mechanical where Rule 46A evidence was filed but not examined. The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
The Tribunal held that compensation received under interim court orders is contingent and does not accrue as income. Taxability arises only in the year when litigation is finally settled and the amount crystallises.
The Tribunal held that the enhanced 60% tax rate cannot apply to transactions before 01.04.2017. For AY 2017-18, unexplained cash additions relating to earlier transactions are taxable only at 30%.
The Tribunal ruled that once an appeal is rejected as time-barred, the appellate authority cannot adjudicate it on merits. A contradictory approach violates jurisdictional discipline and warrants remand.
ITAT ruled that an appeal cannot be rejected mechanically on alleged defects when records show compliance. The case was remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication after proper hearing.
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after April 2021 were valid. The Tribunal held that notices issued beyond the surviving time limit were barred, rendering all reassessment proceedings void.
CESTAT Allahabad held that extended period of limitation is not invocable since alleged inadmissible cenvat credit was duly reflected in the return. Accordingly, demand beyond normal period of limitation set aside.
