The Orissa High Court ruled that an ITAT appeal cannot be dismissed merely because the authorised representative violated the virtual hearing dress code. The Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits as no rule permits dismissal on such grounds.
Calcutta HC held that Section 74 does not permit one show cause notice for multiple financial years and quashed the SCN and consequential order.
Supreme Court quashed NCLT and NCLAT orders after finding reliance on fake AI-generated precedents and restored the insolvency case for fresh hearing.
The Calcutta High Court quashed a Section 143(3) assessment after finding that the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing. It held that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed even where an appellate remedy exists.
CBIC clarified that proceedings validly initiated before a taxpayer’s jurisdiction changes remain legally valid. The new jurisdictional officer must continue and conclude all subsequent proceedings after migration.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the CIT(A) cannot reclassify an addition under a different provision of the Income-tax Act without issuing a specific notice to the taxpayer. The decision reinforces the limits of appellate powers and upholds principles of natural justice.
The Committee recommended replacing daily cause lists with weekly schedules and permitting supplementary lists when necessary. The proposal seeks to enhance predictability and administrative efficiency in tribunal proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that heirs inheriting property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act take definite shares as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. A widow holding only a 1/5th share could not act as karta to sell the entire property on grounds of legal necessity.
The Income Tax Act 2025 introduces mandatory reporting of high-value gifted immovable properties exceeding ₹45 lakh. The amendment significantly expands the SFT framework and increases scrutiny of property transactions without consideration.
The High Court ruled that a transit State cannot impose GST penalties on goods merely passing through its territory when no tax liability arises there. The judgment clarifies limits on State GST powers in interstate transportation cases and protects taxpayers from multiple penalties across States.
