ITAT Chandigarh held that no incriminating material found during course of search and assessment is completed during date of search hence addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not sustainable.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance and procedural delay. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A).
Madras High Court held that it is settled law that no assessment or reassessment can be made on a dead person. Thus, order against the deceased assessee is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance against notice issued in DRC-01A, the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and petitioner will be granted opportunity of being heard on payment of the amount.
Supreme Court held that Rajasthan High Court not justified in dismissing the appeal by considering matter under section 10(20) since it was the case of section 11 and 12 of Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 is six year which expires on 31.03.2022. Accordingly, notice issued on 29.07.2022 u/s. 148 is barred by limitation.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance with notice issued under GST, the petitioner is required to deposit 25% of disputed tax and post deposit of amount, the petitioner will be granted an opportunity of being heard.
NCLT Delhi held that admissible of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) not justified since invoices covered under section 10A has to be excluded and accordingly amount claimed will be less than threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore.
Madras High Court held that order confirming demand due to mismatch between returns under GST set aside with condition to deposit 25% of disputed tax amount since petitioner neither replied to DRC-01 and neither attended personal hearing.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay of 85 days in filing of appeal before CIT(A) condoned on medical grounds. Accordingly, matter remitted back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.
