The CESTAT held that penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA cannot be imposed without establishing the appellant’s knowledge of mis-declaration. The appeal succeeded, and fines were set aside.
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to an accused in a GST evasion case involving Rs. 22 crore, considering the petitioner’s four-month custody and the statutory maximum punishment.
The issue was whether compensation awarded for the death of a minor was grossly inadequate. The Supreme Court recalculated compensation using minimum wages, 40% future prospects, and multiplier 15, substantially enhancing the award.
The dispute concerned the scope of the deeming provision under Section 103 of the MSCS Act. The Court ruled that the deeming fiction operates only when the society’s objects, not merely its operations, span multiple States.
Delhi High Court held that internal disputes among company directors do not justify condonation of delay in filing ITR, upholding statutory compliance requirements.
The issue was whether payment of substantial loan EMIs can be treated as proof of income. The Court ruled that EMIs, without corroborative evidence, cannot determine income, leading to a downward revision of compensation.
The Court held that a vehicle registered in Puducherry but used in Kerala is liable for state motor vehicle tax, dismissing claims of permanent use outside Kerala.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) fails where the notice alleged inaccurate particulars but the levy was based on concealment.
The Court held that inordinate delay of 8–9 years in adjudicating show cause notices violates principles of fairness and cannot be allowed to prejudice the assessee.
The High Court affirmed the assessment by applying its earlier decision while directing payment of differential tax to enable statutory compliance.
