The case addresses withdrawal of an advance ruling request before its pronouncement. The authority permitted withdrawal under Regulation 20, leaving the classification and duty issues undecided.
The Court declined interference as proceedings were already initiated by both departments. Petitioners were directed to respond to notices through proper channels.
The case addressed denial of refund of VAT pre-deposit made through ITC. The Court held that Section 142(6) mandates cash refund and overrides conflicting departmental circulars, ensuring taxpayer relief.
The Court held that Section 107(11) expressly prohibits remand to the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority must decide the case within prescribed options.
The Court held that cash is not covered under the term “things” in Section 67(2). Seizure of currency was declared without authority of law.
The Court held that the impugned order should be challenged through statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction was not invoked due to the availability of an effective remedy.
The Court ruled that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively without proper application of mind. The order was quashed for lack of objective reasoning.
The Court held that cancellation based on reasons not mentioned in the SCN is unsustainable. The retrospective cancellation was modified to align with procedural fairness.
ITAT Pune held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on audit objection is merely change of opinion and the same is impermissible in law. Accordingly, notice issued u/s. 148 is not valid and is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal held that additions based on presumptions without evidence cannot be sustained fully. It reduced the addition on unexplained cash deposits from 10% to 5%, granting relief to the assessee.
