Granting less than 24 hours to reply to show-cause notice is a flaw in decision making process; asse

IT : Justice must not only be done but appear to be done. Allowing assesses less than 24 hours to respond to show cause notice calling upon assessee to show cause as to why claim for deduction under section 80-IA shouldn't be disallowed particularly when there is no fear of the assessment getting time barred in the near future is a flaw in the decision making process and therefore amenable to judicial review. In such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the notice issuing authority to grant reaso

Invocation of extended period would be justified even if revenue had knowledge of suppression made b

Central Excise : Whenever there is non-levy or short-levy of duty with an intention to evade payment of duty, invocation of extended period of limitation would be justified; it cannot be said that since Revenue has knowledge of suppression, extended period of limitation cannot be legitimately invoked

AO's order couldn't be labelled as erroneous if it was concluded after thorough scrutiny of assessee

IT : Where assessment proceedings allowing deduction under section 80-IB(10) were concluded after thorough scrutiny of details furnished by assessee that too under section 147, read with section 143(3), Assessing Officer's order could not be termed as erroneous

HC upholds CESTAT's order for predeposit of duty as it was passed after considering judicial precede

ST : Where pre-deposit order of Tribunal was passed taking into consideration all relevant factors including precedent orders of High Court and Supreme Court in respect of assessee's own case for earlier period, such order could not be faulted with

RBI allows bullet repayment of loans extended against pledge of gold up to Rs 1 lakh

BANKING : Non-Agriculture Loans Against Gold Ornaments and Jewellery

HC upholds sec. 40A(3) disallowance on assessee's failure to prove that suppliers insisted on cash p

IT: Where assessee's claim that suppliers of goods invariably insisted on spot payment of cash to lorry drivers was not supported with any evidence, cash payments attracted provisions of section 40A(3)

HC slams CIT(A) for seeking huge demand from assessee without hearing its request on merits

IT: Where Commissioner (Appeals) did not deal with submission of assessee that on reconstruction, benefit arose on capital account, and directed assessee to deposit major part of demand, same could not be complied till application be heard on merits

Tribunal had power to restore appeal which was dismissed for default of pre-deposit requirement

Customs : Tribunal has power to restore appeal dismissed for default of pre-deposit, if ends of justice require such course of action

A not so elaborate order couldn't be a valid excuse for CIT to tag erroneous label to AO's order

IT: An assessment order could not be said to be erroneous by Commissioner merely because, according to him, Assessing Officer should make adequate - enquiry and its order be written more elaborately

Review petition not admissible as HC founded its verdict on a judgment delivered by Apex Court

Service Tax : Where a High Court follows an order of other High Court, any order passed by Supreme Court against judgment of that other High Court will automatically govern assessees involved in judgment of first High Court and no review would lie even if Supreme Court itself passed a different judgment in any other case