The High Court refused anticipatory bail, holding that the investigation into the alleged liquor syndicate was at a crucial stage and required custodial interrogation of the accused. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting pre-arrest protection.
The ITAT held that reassessment initiated beyond four years cannot survive unless the Assessing Officer records that the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. Since the recorded reasons contained no such allegation, the notice under Section 148 was declared invalid. The consequential reassessment order was quashed.
The ITAT Chennai held that an Assessing Officer cannot introduce a new addition while giving effect to an appellate order. Since the Tribunal had issued no direction to tax ₹5 crore as income from other sources, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that actual rent received under genuine, registered agreements cannot be replaced with hypothetical market rent without cogent evidence of manipulation or unaccounted consideration. Since the Revenue failed to establish suppression of rent, the ALV addition was deleted.
ITAT found that the assessee had sufficient cash resources to meet the impugned credit card payments. Since the authorities did not establish utilisation of cash elsewhere, the addition was deleted.
The High Court remitted the GST matter for fresh consideration after the taxpayer agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The Court also directed submission of a reply to the show cause notice within the prescribed period.
The Calcutta High Court held that refund adjustment against a disputed tax demand was unsustainable when both a stay application and appeal remained pending. The Court directed release of the refund with interest and barred coercive recovery until the stay application is decided.
The High Court questioned the Revenue’s refusal to grant credit for advance tax and TDS despite substantial amounts already lying with the Government. The matter was directed towards reconsideration through a fresh assessment.
The ITAT Jodhpur deleted the disallowance relating to delayed PF and ESI deposits, holding that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the EPFO’s relaxation measures had not been properly considered. The Tribunal emphasized a pragmatic approach in exceptional circumstances.
Bombay High Court quashed income tax reassessment proceedings after holding that the PAN was not transferred to the competent jurisdictional officer and the Section 148 notice was issued by an officer lacking authority.
