ITAT Raipur held that reopening of proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond a period of 4 years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully & truly all the material facts is liable to be annulled.
Karnataka High Court held that reassessment order under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law since passed without following mandatory procedure of disposal of objections. Accordingly, order of reassessment set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition invoking provisions of section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act without referring the valuation of the capital asset to the valuation officer is not justifiable. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO to refer the matter to valuation officer for determining Fair Market Value.
Madras High Court held that writ against order confirming demand towards difference between Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in GSTR -3B and ITC available as per GSTR – 2A dismissed due to availability of efficacious remedy.
Explore the clash between India’s GAAR and DTAAs, examining how domestic anti-avoidance provisions interact with international tax commitments and the impact on taxpayers.
Allahabad HC has suspended Rs 500 charge for photo identification on affidavits, deeming it unlawful and a barrier to justice. Court also mandated acceptance of notarized affidavits.
Driving on Indian roads is not a cakewalk, but it takes adeptness and presence of mind to avoid accidents. For this reason, the Government of India is encouraging the introduction of digital platforms in all states, which will help reduce accidents on highways and roads.
Tribunal remanded the matter after finding that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal mechanically without examining the assessee’s grounds.
NCLAT Delhi held that the communication of Section 8 Demand Notice via registered email address of Corporate Debtor is valid service of demand notice. Accordingly, admission of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code justifiable.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that upholding of addition by CIT(A) and ITAT merely on the basis of non-appearance without deciding the same on merits and complying with provisions of section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income Tax Act is not justified.
