The Calcutta High Court held that an appellate authority must independently evaluate the grounds of appeal and supporting explanations. Repeating the adjudicating officer’s findings without analysis renders the order invalid.
The Kerala High Court set aside a Single Judge’s decision after finding that earlier Division Bench directions to decide the writ petition on merits were not followed. The case involving attachment of a DRAT pre-deposit was remanded again for fresh consideration with liberty for all parties to raise their contentions.
The Delhi High Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing the grant of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G without examining the genuineness of the trust’s activities. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for proper inquiry.
The Madras High Court observed that officers should explore other methods under Section 169, such as RPAD, when taxpayers do not respond to portal notices. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded.
The tribunal ruled that reallocating management expenses to the profit and loss account under IRDA regulations does not violate law and therefore cannot justify disallowance under the Income-tax Act.
The Allahabad High Court observed that requiring taxpayers to obtain temporary IDs from the same officer who passed the order may create delays and scope for malpractice. The Court suggested exploring auto-generation of IDs to ensure easier access to GST appeals.
Bain & Company Vs D/ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi arose from a final assessment order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a foreign company […]
The Delhi High Court held that continuing a lookout circular after the conclusion of tax proceedings and in the absence of any outstanding demand violated fundamental rights. The Court ruled that administrative delay in gathering foreign information cannot justify indefinite travel restrictions.
The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s ruling that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act provides a mandatory arbitration mechanism for disputes between banks or financial institutions involving unpaid dues.
The Gauhati High Court held that a summary issued in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73. Proceedings initiated without such notice were held invalid.
