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.
The new labour framework mandates restructuring of wages to ensure basic pay and dearness allowance form at least half of remuneration. This mainly affects fixed-term and contract workers, while permanent employees see limited change.
The Tribunal held that earning income as a percentage of hospital turnover is commercial, not charitable. Section 80G approval was rightly denied for lack of genuine charitable application.
The issue was whether mushroom-growing shelves could be classified based on their agricultural end use. The Court held that end use is irrelevant unless the tariff heading expressly permits it. Classification must follow the condition and nature of goods at the time of import.
The Court held that electricity generated in an SEZ and supplied domestically is not an import under customs law. In the absence of a charging section, the levy was declared unconstitutional and refunds were ordered.
ITAT Mumbai held that alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed when the assessee provides invoices, receipts, bank proofs, and GST compliance. The ruling confirms that suppliers’ non-filing alone is insufficient for disallowance.
The Revenue sought to reopen completed assessments under section 153A without fresh incriminating evidence. The Tribunal ruled that such additions are barred, following Kabul Chawla and Abhisar Buildwell.
The Tribunal held that an intimation under Section 143(1) based on a forged revised return is appealable. It directed a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee to file the correct return, reaffirming that technicalities cannot defeat substantive justice.
