The representation points to widespread taxpayer hardship due to late ITR utilities and faulty AIS-driven mismatch alerts. KSCAA stressed that technology-led compliance must remain facilitative, not coercive.
The issue was whether ITC could be recovered from a bona fide recipient without first proceeding against the supplier. The key takeaway is that statutory procedure under Section 42 must be followed before reversing ITC.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the scope of Section 151A are void in law. All notices issued under Sections 148 and 142(1) were therefore set aside.
This case analysis explains why loose papers are not treated as books of account. Tax liability cannot arise solely from unverified jottings lacking linkage to real transactions.
The High Court held that an assessment completed without granting a real opportunity to respond cannot stand. Ex parte reassessment and penalty orders were therefore set aside.
The Court held that tax proceedings cannot continue without first determining who legally represents a deceased assessee. Orders passed without such determination were set aside.
The issue was taxation of LLP partner’s remuneration without applying Sections 28(v) and 40(b). The High Court set aside the assessment for failure to consider the statutory scheme, remanding the matter for fresh decision.
Karnataka High Court quashed the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit documents and replies before reconsideration.
Karnataka High Court set aside reassessment and penalty orders where the assessee could not file returns due to inactive email, granting a fresh opportunity to submit documents and pleadings.
The issue involved reassessment completed without a reply to the reopening notice. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity.
