The Court granted bail noting that the alleged accountant was not the primary beneficiary of the fraudulent ITC. Custody period, limited punishment, and parity with a co-accused weighed in favour of release.
The Tribunal held that customs and excise dues of a company in liquidation cannot be recovered from auction purchasers of its assets. Pre-liquidation liabilities must be settled under the Companies Act, not through recovery from buyers.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot proceed on vague notices lacking reasons for alleged escapement of income. Orders under Section 148A(3) and notices under Section 148 were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether sale proceeds of inherited jewellery could be taxed as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal held that valuation reports, affidavits, and banking records sufficiently explained the source, leading to deletion of the Section 68 addition.
The Supreme Court ruled that duty-free imports under export incentive licences cannot be denied without evidence of fraud. Valid licences and verified exports were held sufficient to retain benefits.
The Court examined rejection of condonation for delayed e-filing despite acceptance of related delays. It ruled that authorities must consider genuine hardship and cannot deny relief on a purely technical ground.
The Tribunal applied common sense to accept that some jewellery belonged to visiting relatives. It granted partial deletion, stressing that complete relief requires corroborative evidence.
The issue was whether a second reassessment could be initiated on the same facts already examined earlier. The Tribunal held that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is invalid and quashed the reassessment.
The issue was whether the Company Law Board could condone delay in appeals under Section 58(3). The Supreme Court held that CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, had no such power in absence of statutory authority.
The Tribunal held that long-term capital gains from listed share sales could not be treated as bogus merely due to high profits. In the absence of contrary evidence, additions under Sections 68 and 69C were deleted.
