CCPA held that sale of toys without mandatory BIS certification violated the Consumer Protection Act and Toys Quality Control Order. The Authority imposed a penalty and directed future compliance with mandatory standards.
The ITAT ruled that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record satisfaction in assessment or related proceedings. Since no assessment proceedings existed in the case, the penalty was held unsustainable in law.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that additions for alleged cash payments cannot be sustained merely on the basis of third-party seized documents. The Tribunal ruled that absence of corroborative evidence, cash trail, or signed records makes such additions legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. It relied on CBDT Instruction prescribing monetary limits. The ruling highlights strict adherence to jurisdictional norms.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains cannot be disallowed solely on investigation reports and assumptions. It found that documentary evidence and investment history supported genuineness, leading to deletion of additions under Section 68.
The case addressed the taxability of duty drawback income based on accounting method. The Tribunal ruled that taxing it on accrual basis was incorrect and ordered deletion of the addition.
The case addressed whether multiple financial years can be combined in a single show cause notice under GST law. The Court held such consolidation impermissible, emphasizing that each financial year is a separate tax period.
The case examined the legality of imposing both late fee and general penalty for the same default. The Court ruled that such overlapping penalties are unjustified and unsustainable. The decision clarifies that only one penal consequence can be applied in such cases.
The tribunal held that selling only open land, even if earlier part of a residential property, does not qualify as transfer of a residential house. Since no building was sold, exemption under Section 54 was rightly denied.
The case examined whether a statement recorded during search can justify tax additions. The Court held that confession without supporting evidence is insufficient. It reinforces that corroboration is essential for sustaining additions.
