The Kerala High Court held that delay condonation applications under Section 119(2)(b) must comply with the revised five-year limitation prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Court ruled that authorities cannot entertain applications filed beyond the revised period.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that CPC cannot suo motu reclassify an apartment owners association as a co-operative society while processing returns under Section 143(1). The Tribunal deleted the Rs. 97,690 demand after finding the adjustment beyond the scope of prima facie processing.
The Madras High Court refused to quash prosecution under Section 276C(2) after noting continued non-payment of admitted tax liability and prolonged default. The Court held that issues raised by the assessee should be decided during trial.
Tripura High Court granted leave to challenge release of seized gold after noting that confiscation orders had already been upheld by appellate authorities and CESTAT. The Court held that the trial court’s release order prima facie contradicted those finalized confiscation proceedings.
CESTAT Mumbai held that a mere demand notice cannot replace the statutory show cause notice required under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal ruled that recovery proceedings initiated without proper notice were legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the Settlement Commission’s duty calculations did not establish any CVD component for certain advance licences, making the corresponding credit claim unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that an appeal dismissed ex-parte by NFAC should still be decided on merits under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute arising from a conveyance relating to office premises satisfied the definition of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Explore key governance and compliance gaps uncovered during IPO due diligence, including POSH, filings, capital structure and records.
Tripura High Court held that Bar Associations cannot penalize advocates for attending courts despite boycott calls, protecting lawyers’ professional duties to clients.
