HC court upheld factual findings of lower authorities, emphasizing its limited jurisdiction under Section 260A of Income Tax Act. It clarified that it cannot reevaluate questions of fact in the absence of any grounds alleging perversity in the findings.
Madras High Court Directs Timely Processing of Refund granted under section 5(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 in Writ Petition: Muthukumaran Rangarajan Vs ITO
Read the Madras High Court’s recent ruling in Voora Property Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT, challenging the Assessment Order dated 08.09.2022 for Assessment Year 2020-21. The court highlighted the failure to consider the petitioner’s response, directing a fresh assessment within four months.
HC court clarified that petitioner has right to raise jurisdictional issue during section 148 proceedings, and section 149(1) allows challenging a notice issued without jurisdiction.
The court found that the impugned order’s conclusion about the petitioner not filing a reply was inconsistent with the documented evidence, rendering the order unsustainable.
Explore the recent ruling by the Madras High Court in N. Kannammal vs. Assessment Unit, highlighting the petitioner’s challenge against an unjust assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 07.12.2022, and the court’s directive for a fresh consideration, emphasizing procedural fairness and natural justice.
In TSN Old Iron Scrap Merchants vs. Deputy Commissioner case, Andhra Pradesh High Court rules non-appearance at GST hearing doesn’t violate natural justice.
Kerala High Court held that as importer-seller classified the HSN 8443 3100, the purchaser/re-seller cannot be said to have wilfully classified the machines under a wrong head with the intention to evade payment of correct/higher rate of tax. Hence, penalty unsustainable.
The Court observed that Section 75(4) explicitly requires an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is anticipated. Considering that both tax and penalties were imposed, and an adverse decision was contemplated, the Court held that the department was obligated to provide a hearing.
Explore the Madras High Court’s decision in Peter Tyres v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Excise, where a writ petition was dismissed due to the availability of statutory remedies. Learn about the rejection of Input Tax Credit and the court’s stance on discretionary jurisdiction. Know your options in similar situations.
