The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment (u/s 147 and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued notices, violating the Section 151A mandate for faceless reassessment. The ruling reinforces that all orders based on notices issued outside the scheme’s scope are void and stand quashed.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment notices (u/s 148A and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued them, violating the mandate of Section 151A under the faceless scheme. The ruling confirms that notices issued outside the centralized, faceless framework are invalid and without authority.
CAAR Mumbai held that unvulcanised compound rubber made of natural rubber, carbon black, and stearic acid is classifiable under Heading 4005 1000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that customized heat sinks used in PCBAs of data center switches and uplink cards are classifiable under 8517 79 90 as parts of communication apparatus.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that customized metal chassis, covers, and heatsinks used in data center switches are classifiable under 8517 79 90 as parts of communication apparatus and eligible for Nil customs duty under Notification No. 57/2017-Customs.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing of Form No. 10 was condoned since activities of trust are genuine and denial of benefit of accumulation u/s. 11(2) due to delay in Form No. 10 would cause genuine hardship.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings, including Section 148A and consequential penalty orders, ruling they were initiated without jurisdiction. The court found that the jurisdictional AO issued notices outside the scope of Section 151A, violating the CBDT’s faceless scheme.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the ex parte assessment, penalty, and demand orders passed under Sections 143(3) and 144B, accepting the taxpayer’s plea of bona fide non-appearance. The court adopted a justice-oriented approach, remitting the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration from the show-cause notice stage.
The Karnataka High Court struck down an Income Tax attachment under Section 281B because the property was exclusively owned by a non-assessee petitioner who acquired it through valid transactions. The court ruled that tax recovery cannot attach property not belonging to the actual assessee, making the order illegal.
NCLT Kolkata held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against Haran Chandra Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] is admitted since financial debt and default is duly established.
