Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Sushil Jaiswal Vs Union of India – order under Section 148A(d) set aside due to denial of personal hearing violating principles of natural justice.
Gujarat High Court held that penalty not imposable as excess depreciation claimed was surrendered by the assessee without prior detection of the Revenue and such excess claim was made due to bonafide reasons.
Gujarat High Court held that misconduct charges against the auditor not sustained stating the Statute provides remedy of appeal is only available to a member of ICAI against the decision of the Board Discipline or Disciplinary Committee imposing any penalty. The same is not available to the complainant or informant.
Delhi High Court held that show cause notice issued after the expiry of the prescribed period under section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 would not survive in law.
The Delhi High Court recently dealt with two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 6061/2023 and W.P.(C) 6062/2023) concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The issue raised in these petitions was similar to the one in another case titled “Harvinder Singh (HUF) v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Gemini Overseas Limited filed a writ petition challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without approval from the “Specified Authority” as required under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A noteworthy ruling from the Calcutta High Court upholds a preliminary report issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue in the case of non-filing of an objection by Jac Olivol Products Private Limited, shedding light on critical nuances of the WBGST Act.
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.
Bombay High Court’s landmark ruling confirms that only the profit element of bogus purchases can be added to taxable income, emphasizing the requirement for reconciliation of stock in cases of alleged accommodation entries.
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.
