ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) wrongly treated the DVO’s report as binding and failed to independently scrutinize comparables, methodology, and objections. Key takeaway: the first appellate authority must evaluate the DVO’s report on merits and issue a speaking order.
Delhi High Court holds that the right to cross-examine witnesses in GST proceedings is not unfettered, and blanket requests without justification can be denied.
The Court remanded the case after finding that the SCN was uploaded only in the Additional Notices tab, preventing the petitioner from replying. Fresh adjudication was ordered, and the notification-validity issue was left open.
The Court stayed a Tribunal order allowing redemption of confiscated gold while examining whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Customs Act. The ruling highlights the need to address key legal questions before relief is granted.
The Court held that penalty for delayed reversal of credit on obsolete inputs was unjustified since no advantage was gained and the credit had been duly reversed. The writ petition was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.
The tribunal held that the State Electricity Board consumer tariff of ₹6.62/unit was the valid internal CUP for captive power transfer. Rejecting comparisons with generating companies, it ruled that no downward adjustment was required. The key takeaway is that actual SEB purchase rates can reliably determine market value for 80IA claims.
Tribunal upheld capital gains exemptions after finding that assessee had furnished proof of investments under sections 54F and 54EC. The ruling confirms that omission to consider evidence cannot justify denial of statutory relief.
The Tribunal held that granting only one day to reply to a show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice. The assessment order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh examination.
Tribunal held that AO erred by rejecting agricultural income based on estimated rates and online data while ignoring affidavits from buyers. It ruled that uncontroverted evidence cannot be replaced by assumptions, leading to deletion of ₹1.20 crore addition.
The ruling found no liability to deduct TDS because individual payments to transferors were below the statutory threshold. Consequently, the fee and interest imposed under Section 234E were set aside.
