The Delhi High Court held that an assessment order cannot be remanded to the AO without adjudicating the validity of the Section 144 order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide jurisdiction first.
The issue was whether failure to deposit unutilised capital gains in CGAS before the due date defeats Section 54B relief. The ITAT held that where eligible agricultural land is purchased within time and cheques are issued with sufficient balance, CGAS non-deposit is only procedural. Full exemption was therefore allowed.
The High Court held that a GST demand cannot exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice, setting aside the order for violating Section 75(7) and principles of natural justice.
The key question was whether STR-based information can trigger harsh taxation under Section 115BBE. The ITAT held that without concrete evidence of non-genuine transactions, such additions cannot stand. Both reopening and tax addition were annulled.
The Bombay High Court ruled that pineapple slices, tidbits, and fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup and canned cannot be classified as “fresh fruits” under Entry A-23 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, denying tax exemption.
The Court held that once the State Authority initiated proceedings first, the Central Authority could not launch parallel adjudicatory action on the same subject matter. It directed compliance with summons but required coordination to prevent duplicate proceedings.
The High Court held that service of income tax notices on an email ID from a previous return was valid, dismissing the writ petition and directing the assessee to pursue statutory appeal remedies.
The Tribunal held that building construction for future educational use qualifies as charitable activity. The rejection of 80G approval solely due to absence of active operations was ruled unjustified.
The Tribunal held that a charitable trust’s 80G application rejected for late filing must be reconsidered after the trust seeks condonation under Section 119(2)(b). Procedural delay should not defeat substantive rights.
The Tribunal held that a Section 148 notice issued after three years was invalid because the escaped income was below ₹50 lakh, making the reopening beyond limitation.
