Delhi High Court held that assessment order passed without making required inquiries or verification is considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, accordingly, PCIT rightly invoked revisional powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court rules that pre-deposit of 20% demand is not a precondition for considering stay application during the pendency of the first appeal. Read the detailed judgment here.
Allahabad High Court held that valid service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent for making reassessment under section 147. Accordingly, non-service of notice on registered email ID is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Read how Kerala HC granted interim exemption to a mother for importing medicine for her child suffering from SMA, exempting her from payment of IGST.
Discover the implications of Rajesh Mittal vs Union of India case on GST proceedings. Learn why Central GST Authoritys actions were halted when State GST Authority initiated proceedings.
The Bombay High Court in Siemens India Ltd. v. Union of India holds that Input Service Distributors’ entitlement to transition Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied due to procedural lapses.
Jammu & Kashmir HC held that that it was not open to the respondent-Enforcement Directorate to proceed against the petitioner in respect of offences under PMLA once the FIR in respect of the predicate offences had been stayed by the High Court.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer is not required to declare the sale between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as invalid as the sale is void abinito. Thus, court directed petitioner to institute suit in a civil court to establish right over disputed property.
Kerala High Court held that all the projects which received occupancy certificate after 01.05.2017 are covered within the purview of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA Act, 2016) and mandatory registration as proved u/s. 20(1) of K-RERA needs to be obtained.
Supreme Court rejected the bail application of Shri Satyendar Kumar Jain and others involved in the case of money laundering as appellants have not complied with the twin mandatory conditions laid down in Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
