The Court held that while the assessees reply period had to be excluded under Section 149, the Assessing Officer still failed to issue the Section 148 notice within the extended statutory timeline. The reassessment notice was therefore quashed as time-barred.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that appellate authorities are empowered to entertain claims not made before the Assessing Officer. The absence of a revised return did not bar consideration of the claim.
ITAT Chandigarh held that compensation received on termination of employment due to retrenchment was a capital receipt. The Tribunal ruled that no part of the compensation was taxable.
The Court held that compensation paid to workmen under a Government-approved closure package was exempt under the second proviso to Section 10(10B). TDS could not be deducted on the amount.
ITAT Chandigarh held that compensation received under the HMT Tractor Division closure package qualified for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal treated the payment as closure-related compensation rather than ordinary voluntary retirement compensation.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the manufacturer and marketing company could not be treated as related persons under the Central Excise Act. As a result, the valuation-based excise demands and penalties were set aside.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that the manufacturer and marketing company could not be treated as related persons under the Central Excise Act. As a result, the excise duty demand based on related-party valuation was set aside.
The Rajasthan High Court held that notices issued under Section 148A to a deceased person are a nullity. However, the Department was allowed to reinitiate proceedings against legal representatives in accordance with law.
The Rajasthan High Court held that reassessment proceedings against legal representatives of a deceased assessee must comply with Section 148A(b). Notices and orders issued without following the mandatory procedure were quashed.
The Court granted bail after noting that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of five years. The petitioner was directed to cooperate during trial.
