The Court ruled that assessment proceedings cannot continue in the name of a deceased proprietor. Fresh notices, if any, must be issued to the legal heirs in accordance with law.
The Calcutta High Court refused to entertain the Income Tax Department’s appeal after finding that the Revenue failed to identify any applicable exceptional clause to bypass the low tax effect limit.
The Orissa High Court directed GST authorities to withdraw bank attachment notices after the taxpayer undertook to pay admitted GST dues in installments. The Court ordered phased payment of the outstanding amount subject to strict timelines.
The Tribunal ruled that deemed dividend provisions require evidence of withdrawal from a company in which the assessee is a shareholder. Since the shortage related to a proprietary concern, the addition was deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that notional interest on business advances cannot be taxed without actual accrual or receipt of income. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the advances were made during the ordinary course of business.
The Tribunal observed that once the Revenue accepted sales arising from the same goods, it could not entirely disallow purchases as bogus. The decision emphasized the importance of stock records, invoices, and transport documents.
The ITAT Mumbai held that a reassessment notice cannot be treated as valid merely because it carried an earlier date when it was actually signed and served after limitation expired. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as without jurisdiction.
The Court permitted the petitioner to produce a clearer bill of lading in support of its IGST refund claim on ocean freight. The appellate authority was directed to reconsider the appeal on merits.
The Allahabad High Court set aside appellate orders dismissing GST appeals as time-barred after holding that the Revenue failed to establish actual communication of orders. The Court ruled that limitation must be computed from the date of effective communication disclosed by the assessee unless rebutted with evidence.
The Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Department was liable to compensate an assessee for delayed release of seized KVPs and IVPs after settlement dues were paid. The Court awarded interest for the delay period and additional simple interest for continued non-payment.
