Analyzing the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Durge Metals vs. Appellate Authority & Joint Commissioner, State Tax, concerning GST Act violations.
Madras High Court held that even if AO of both searched person and other person is same, for completing Assessment proceedings and passing the Assessment order has to be calculated from the date on which the documents were handed over or deemed to have been handed over to the AO of the “other person”.
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.
