The Commission found prima facie evidence that restrictive actions and refusal of approval may have denied market access to private event organizers. It ordered a DG investigation into alleged violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.
Supreme Court dismissed SLPs, confirming that DTAA rates override Section 206AA for non-residents without PAN. The case follows the Air India ratio, providing legal finality on TDS obligations.
The Court held that rejection of a settlement application without settlement terms does not bar an assessee from contesting assessment on merits, affirming revival of appellate rights.
Tribunal upheld disallowance of Section 54F exemption after the assessee failed to prove ownership of the residential property. The ruling confirms that deduction requires clear evidence of title.
Tribunal holds that service tax cannot be demanded solely on differences between income tax and service tax returns. The ruling confirms that exemptions and disclosures must be verified through proper inquiry, and extended limitation was wrongly invoked.
ITAT dismissed appeals and upheld 271B penalties as the assessee failed to audit accounts despite turnover exceeding Rs. 1 crore. No reasonable cause was shown.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation were supported by genuine cash sales of damaged rice, verified through stock records, GST filings, and insurance assessments. The AO’s allegation of bogus sales under Section 68 was rejected for lack of evidence. The ruling confirms that suspicion cannot override documented business transactions.
Delhi HC ruled that both jurisdictional and faceless officers can issue Section 148 notices. It reaffirmed that faceless regime does not eliminate JAO authority until Supreme Court decides otherwise.
Tribunal held that assessment was void because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, confirming that such omission cannot be cured and invalidates entire assessment.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was invalid because the authority failed to demonstrate how the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The AO’s enquiries and acceptance of a plausible view were upheld.
