Karnataka High Court set aside a FEMA show-cause notice and complaint issued after Section 6(3)(b) of Act was omitted by Finance Act, 2015. Court ruled that proceedings based on a non-existent provision are void ab initio. It reaffirmed that, without a saving clause, authorities lack jurisdiction to act under an omitted section.
Karnataka High Court directed that no coercive measures be taken against borrowers until their recall plea is decided by DRT. Court emphasized that issues of improper service of notice must be adjudicated before recovery is enforced. The ruling safeguards borrowers’ right to be heard in debt recovery proceedings.
Karnataka High Court held that Enforcement Directorate cannot attach assets mortgaged to banks under SARFAESI Act. Court found that such properties, acquired through lawful bank loans, are not proceeds of crime. It reaffirmed that secured creditors’ recovery rights under SARFAESI override PMLA proceedings where the bank is a victim, not a beneficiary.
The Madras High Court set aside a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, holding it void under the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Court ruled that only the Faceless Assessment Officer has the authority to issue such notices. This decision reinforces the binding nature of the faceless reassessment mechanism post-notification.
The Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to dispose of a representation pending since 2014 within six weeks. The Court noted that the Department had already acknowledged the delay and must now act promptly. The ruling reinforces that prolonged inaction on taxpayer representations is unacceptable.
The Court stayed recovery proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) against the assessee’s bank accounts, noting that a stay application was already scheduled for hearing. Since the taxpayer had exercised his appellate and rectification rights, the Court found the Department’s coercive action premature. It ordered maintenance of status quo until the next hearing date. The judgment emphasizes fairness and procedural propriety in tax recovery.
The Court observed that the Income Tax Department acted without due verification in raising a demand on a deactivated PAN. Since the Department had already recognized the active PAN in earlier proceedings, the fresh demand appeared erroneous and procedurally invalid. Justice C. Saravanan granted an interim stay and sought production of the relevant assessment records. The case highlights the need for robust PAN verification before initiating recovery actions.
The Bombay High Court confirmed a 15% addition on alleged bogus purchases, rejecting the Revenue’s plea for full disallowance. The Court held that reliance solely on Sales Tax Department data, without giving the assessee cross-examination rights, violates natural justice. With concurrent factual findings by lower authorities, no substantial question of law was found to arise.
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed an appeal, restricting a Rs. 10 lakh cash deposit addition to 1 lakh after the assessee, a salaried individual, explained the source as family savings from disclosed income. The Tribunal used a reasonable estimate approach, finding neither the assessee’s full explanation nor the Revenue’s complete rejection of evidence to be fully warranted, granting Rs. 9 lakh relief.
Bombay High Court quashed reassessment proceedings initiated using data from a valid IDS declaration, holding that once accepted under the Income Disclosure Scheme, the Revenue cannot revisit or reassess the same income.
