Kerala High Court held that section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act does not empower Principal Chief Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider the merits of the claim of income, loss, etc.
Kerala High Court held that the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to consider the merits of the refund application. Here, what is required to be considered is the merits of the application for condonation of delay only.
Kerala High Court held that provisions of section 250 of the Income Tax Act mandates Commissioner (A) to fix the date and place of hearing in the appeal and notice in that regard is required to be issued. Order issued in violation of procedure prescribed u/s. 250 is liable to be set aside.
Allahabad High Court applying the principle of indivisibility of a composite contract held that contract cannot be bifurcated to subject a part of the contract to higher TDS.
Jharkhand High Court held that relevant assessment year shall mean as assessment year (AY) preceding AY relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made which falls beyond Six AY but not later than 10 AY from the end of AY relevant to previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 for AY 13-14 duly issued as search was conducted in AY 2023-2024.
Allahabad HC in Shree Krishna Traders vs. State of UP sets aside order on ITC dispute, remits to Revenue Department. Clarifies on GSTIN error in GSTR-1.
Kerala High Court Held that vehicle used for conveyance of contraband articles under the NDPS Act can be confiscated. But till the proceedings are concluded, there is no prohibition in releasing the vehicle under section 451 Cr. P.C after imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly, directed to release vehicle on furnishing of bank guarantee.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an unsigned order cannot be covered under – any mistake, defect or omission therein as used in Section 160. Concluded that unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law.
Madras High Court held that refund of inverted duty structure available u/s 54(3)(ii) of the GST Act even when the supplier has inadvertently charged higher rate i.e. 18% instead of applicable rate i.e. 5%.
Delhi High Court did not granted permission to travel abroad to the petitioner involved in hawala transactions as investigation in FIR registered by Special Cell (EOW) and ECIR registered by the Directorate of Enforcement is pending and petitioner has not placed on record any cogent reason to travel abroad.
