The Court ruled that issuance of notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is the general rule for offences punishable up to seven years. Arrest can be made only in exceptional circumstances after satisfying statutory conditions and recording reasons.
The Court held that penalty under Section 129 cannot be sustained without evidence of intent to evade tax. Since the goods were unloaded at the assessees own godown and no discrepancies existed in the documents, the penalty was set aside.
The Department maintained that search powers could be exercised where there was reason to believe that relevant documents and undisclosed assets were being kept at the premises. The matter involved both personal and third-party records.
The ITAT Bangalore held that a deduction under Section 80G cannot be denied solely because the payment formed part of CSR expenditure. The Tribunal observed that denying the claim after CSR disallowance under Section 37(1) could result in double disallowance and remanded the matter for verification.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act covers attempts to obtain undue advantage through subordinates or third parties. The key takeaway is that public officials cannot avoid liability by using intermediaries.
The Tribunal ruled that no addition could be sustained where the tax department failed to establish actual receipt of interest income. The key takeaway is that presumptions and notings in seized documents cannot substitute proof of income.
Where assessee substantiated purchase, holding and sale of shares of YICL through documentary evidence, DEMAT records, contract notes, STT payments and banking transactions, and Revenue failed to establish any nexus between assessee and alleged price-rigging operators, exemption under section 10(38) could not be denied merely on suspicion or penny-stock allegations.
CCPA held that a subscription renewal interface using the phrase Accept Risk amounted to multiple prohibited dark patterns, including confirm shaming and forced action. A penalty was imposed despite subsequent modifications to the interface.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer recorded incorrect facts regarding the return filing date and declared income. The Tribunal ruled that such defective reasons could not support a valid belief of escaped income.
The Supreme Court held that SEBI failed to establish fraud and market manipulation in RPL futures transactions. While disgorgement was quashed, penalties for violation of position-limit disclosure requirements were upheld.
