Calcutta High Court allows re-hearing and extension to file objections in a case concerning Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act. The decision provides an opportunity for a more detailed review of the law.
Calcutta High Court asserts that the denial of the opportunity for cross-examination and failure to provide copies of evidence render an order invalid under the Income Tax Act.
The Orissa High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging the 1st appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Jajpur Range, Odisha. The petitioner, Biswal Sales, sought to appeal the order, but the 2nd appellate tribunal had not been constituted yet.
Delhi High Court orders a fresh investigation in the Rajnish Yadav Vs ITO case, pertaining to allegations of bogus purchases under the Income Tax Act, citing lack of furnished information to the petitioner.
In the case of Kothari Credit (India) Limited v. Union of India and others, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bombay High Court has directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to re-consider the addition made on account of bogus purchases in the case of PCIT vs. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia. The court found that the ITAT had dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and allowed the assessee’s appeal based on incomplete investigation and failure to consider relevant documents and evidence.
Overview and analysis of the ITAT Bangalore’s decision to direct re-adjudication due to the assessee’s unfamiliarity with the ITBA portal in the Krishnan Sivaprasad vs ITO case.
In-depth analysis of the recent Delhi High Court judgement in PCLT Vs Gopal Kumar Goyal, leading to a quashed 300% penalty imposed by the AO due to lack of clear indication on violation of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In MMTC Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Orissa High Court asserts that the writ court cannot decide disputed facts about tax dues payments, directing the petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer.
Detailed analysis of the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling on the Jindal Fibres Vs C.C.-Kandla case, regarding penalties for misdeclared goods under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Understand the implications for companies operating within SEZs.
