The issue involved denial of a request to summon financial records in a domestic violence proceeding. The Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration after examining ITRs showing actual income.
The Tribunal allowed concessional duty on imported goods after noting that earlier decisions in identical matters had already settled the issue. It held that reliance on a set-aside order was unsustainable. The key takeaway is that binding precedents must be followed, and overturned orders cannot be relied upon.
The High Court set aside demand orders after confirming that the Input Tax Credit had been reversed prior to issuance of the show cause notice. It held that this fact required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of loss based on alleged penny stock manipulation was not justified without corroborative evidence. It found that transactions were supported by demat and banking records.
The Court set aside a show cause notice issued for multiple years in a single proceeding. It held that the GST law requires separate assessment for each financial year. The key takeaway is that consolidation of tax periods is not permissible under Section 74.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer wrongly compared dissimilar email marketing services to determine excess payment. The ruling clarifies that only comparable services can be used for arm’s length evaluation, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Court held that issuing an order before the reply deadline violates natural justice. Even if penalty is paid, authorities must consider objections and pass a reasoned order.
The Court ruled that authorities cannot deny ITC by disregarding binding CBIC circulars. It held that cross-charging of ITC is legally permissible alongside ISD.
The Court examined whether repeated summons to a director amounted to misuse of power. It held that while authorities can summon individuals, such power must not be exercised arbitrarily or for harassment.
The issue was whether equal punishment must apply to co-delinquents. The Court held that higher responsibility justifies stricter punishment, restoring dismissal and rejecting parity claims.
