During pendency of the assessment proceedings, respondent No.1 filed application u/s. 245C(1) before the Income Tax Settlement Commission offering additional income of Rs.17 Crores for the assessment years from 2011-12 to 2017-18.
Bombay High Court held that exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India not justified as alternate and efficacious remedy already available with the petitioner. Hence, writ petition dismissed.
Madras High Court held that cancellation of GST registration on account of non-carrying of any business not justified since business was temporary closed as proprietor had gone abroad during deepavali holidays.
The Petitioner had imported certain goods from Taiwan between 2014 and 2017. The Respondent/Department had suspected undervaluation of said goods and referred the same to the Special Valuation Branch, Delhi.
Patna High Court held that input tax credit in GST regime is not admissible in relation to duty paid on capital goods in transit before appointed date. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
ITAT Bangalore held that denial of exemptions under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act is unjustified as fees are charged by town planning authority to ensure accountability and fund public welfare initiatives, not to generate profit.
NCLAT Delhi held that issuance of notice under rule 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 doesn’t amount to invoking of guarantee.
Petitioner stated that the said notice was issued pursuant to the information collected under section 135A of the Act, which pertains to the transactions entered by some other assessee (Manisha Jain) having a different PAN and having no relation with the petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act against merged company is invalid as company is dissolved after Scheme of Arrangement. Thus, writ petition is allowed and notice/ order quashed.
Delhi High Court held that repeated placing and removing from call books is not a valid justification for non-adjudication of show cause notice for about 15 years. Accordingly, notice is liable to be quashed.
