ITAT Kolkata held that in course of reassessment, AO concludes that no additions or modifications are warranted under these heads, it would not be entitled to make any additions in respect of other items forming part of original return.
Delhi High Court held that revenue/ department is not entitled to adjust the refunds granted to the petitioner against demand of tax that is stayed. Accordingly, department is directed to refund the amount due to the petitioner.
During the scrutiny of the petitioner’s monthly return, it was found that there was a short payment of taxes due to excess claim of Input Tax Credit and alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B.
Madras High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for examination of disputed questions of facts since entire basis of assessment order is on the basis of erroneous/ non-existent facts.
Madras High Court held that non-provision of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as opted by the petitioner, is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order passed is liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period as stipulated under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act is not permissible. Accordingly, notice issued beyond time limit set aside.
Madras High Court held that since petitioner failed to reply to notice nor attended the personal hearing, it is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and post deposit of the tax an opportunity of being heard will be granted.
