Calcutta High Court directed department to accept the classification adopted by appellant since de novo adjudication didn’t commenced within time permitted by High Court but commenced after seven years.
Patna High Court didn’t entertained the writ application filed against ex-parte assessment order passed under GST due to availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal before Tribunal. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
The above discussion is sufficient for us to hold that the order under challenge / OIA dated 30.03.2022 has wrongly confirmed the impugned demand against the appellant. The order is therefore not sustainable.
Gujarat High Court held that Standard Operating Procedure [SOP] to be followed under the Faceless Assessment Procedure of Section 144B of the Income Tax Act in case of non-responsive notice not followed. Accordingly, order quashed and matter remanded back to Faceless assessment authority.
Telangana High Court held that the whole auction proceedings are rightly vitiated since auction was done blatantly in violation of Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
ITAT Pune held that adjustment under section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act as deemed income cannot be sustained as accumulated surplus funds are utilized within stipulated time period and the amendment to the provisions of section 11(3) are held to be prospective in nature.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that delay of 477 days in filing of an appeal on the reason that there was gross negligence on the part of the accountant is not condonable since negligence of accountant not sufficient shown for cause.
The addition of Rs.0.58 Crores as made for cash deposit in the account of IJF with respect to Maheshwari Brothers Coal also stand deleted on same logic. The corresponding grounds of appeal stand allowed.
Karnataka High Court granted bail for offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PML Act] taking into consideration the maximum punishment for the alleged offences and that there is no possibility of trial commencing in the near future.
The AO is a deciding authority. In the present case, it is apparent that the AO had decided that it was not a fit case for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act but had, thereafter, revised the said decision apparently on the basis of an approval of the specified authority.
