The Supreme Court held that assignment of a decree for specific performance does not create any present right or title in immovable property. Therefore, such assignment deeds do not require registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that imported goods being water meters and not flow meters are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 9028 2000 and not under 9026 1010. Accordingly, duty demand confirmed.
The Court held that when multiple authorities are required to communicate an EC, the appeal limitation period begins from the earliest communication. Subsequent notifications cannot extend the period, emphasizing timely action by aggrieved parties.
ITAT Indore held that the order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act made out by authorities, without serving notice upon assessee, would be invalid and inoperative. Accordingly, action undertaken by AO u/s. 147/148 will also be illegal.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s findings after noting the assessee produced no evidence to counter verified disallowances. Key takeaway: appellate relief requires substantiated rebuttal of factual verification.
The Tribunal removed the interest disallowance after holding that the assessee’s earlier favourable ruling covered the issue. Key takeaway: once a factual issue is already adjudicated in the assessee’s own case, consistency must be maintained.
The ITAT sent back the issue of carry-forward business losses for re-examination because assessment records did not clarify earlier allowances. Key takeaway: loss set-off must be verified year-by-year before denial.
The case examines whether a Section 148 notice issued after the extended limitation period was invalid. Key takeaway: approval beyond three years required the higher authority under Section 151(ii), making the notice vulnerable.
The capital-gains addition of ₹4.02 crore arose from 143(1) but was included in the 143(3) scrutiny assessment. ITAT directed CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, ensuring the assessee’s rights during scrutiny are protected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the penalty appeal solely due to VSVS settlement of interest, without adjudicating the depreciation-related penalty. Key takeaway: all grounds must be decided on merits even when only part of the quantum is settled.
