Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 149(1)(a) and (b) of the Income Tax Act is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and proceedings set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of gratuity with interest was fully included within the meaning of operational debt under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] and accordingly, application under Section 9 of IBC was fully maintainable.
ITAT Chennai held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act on mere change of opinion without satisfying necessary ingredients for initiating reassessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, reassessment set aside.
By returning the loan, the assessee has only utilised the loan for the purpose of business and repaid the same. Merely because some operator has managed the affairs and all the transactions cannot be labelled as non-genuine.
Gujarat High Court held that there is no mechanism of issuance of Document Identification Number [DIN] on any of the communication, notice, summons, orders issued by the State Tax Authorities. Accordingly, said contention of petitioner rejected and hence dismissed the petition.
The Petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further on the basis of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act of 1961 and drop the proceedings after considering the objection dated 21.02.2022. Petitioner also prayed for an interim stay of the impugned notice.
Gujarat High Court dismissed anticipatory bail application of the applicant involved in fraudulent availment of input tax credit and passing on inadmissible input tax credit on the strength of issuance of invoices without underlined supply of goods or service or both due to serious economic crime.
Accordingly, the Petitioner preferred an application u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.03.2020, seeking condonation of delay in filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2017–18, with a view to claiming refund of the TDS amount.
ITAT Chennai held that passing of rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act held to be not sustainable since reasonable opportunity of being heard was not granted specifically when rectification resulted into enhancement of an assessment.
NCLAT Dehi held that if the CoC arbitrarily rejects a just settlement offer, the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority can always set aside such a decision. Thus, order admitting section 7 application upheld.
