Clean slate principle extinguishes uncrystallised operational claims and bars continuation of pending recovery and arbitral proceedings after plan app...
Works contract classification governs composite layout-development contracts where VAT-paid goods are transferred alongside construction and infrastru...
Specified income tax exemption for pollution control body remains conditional on non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return filin...
Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Additions for alleged unaccounted admission fees based on seized loose sheets, visitors' slips and diary entries require adequate corroboration. Material relating to specific years cannot support extrapolated additions for other years, and estimated suppression of fees for remaining seats cannot rest on unsupported assumptions. For cancellation seats, an assumption of management-quota fee collection was unsupported where admissions were governed by an agreement restricting fees and admission records were produced. The HC upheld deletion of the additions, finding that the Revenue had not shown perversity in the Tribunal's factual findings. Under section 260A, the HC cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute factual conclusions absent findings based on no evidence or perversity. Exemption issues were left open.
Additions for alleged unaccounted admission fees based on seized loose sheets, visitors' slips and diary entries require adequate corroboration. Material relating to specific years cannot support extrapolated additions for other years, and estimated suppression of fees for remaining seats cannot rest on unsupported assumptions. For cancellation seats, an assumption of management-quota fee collection was unsupported where admissions were governed by an agreement restricting fees and admission records were produced. The HC upheld deletion of the additions, finding that the Revenue had not shown perversity in the Tribunal's factual findings. Under section 260A, the HC cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute factual conclusions absent findings based on no evidence or perversity. Exemption issues were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.