Bombay High Court held that in absence of any finding that non-recovery of tax due from the company can be attributed to any gross-negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on the part of the petitioner, no order could have been made u/s 179(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Allahabad High Court held that bail not granted as the applicant doesnt qualify the twin conditions of section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and applicant is based at Abu Dhabi.
Bombay High Court held that as per provisions of section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act any order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under Section 254, 263 or 264 should be made within a period of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the order is received. Order passed beyond the same will be time barred.
Rajeev Bansal Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Allahabad high court in lead case of Rajeev bansal vs UOI (Writ Tax of 1086/2022) and others by division bench presided by justice sunita agarwal on issue of time barred notices u/s 149 first proviso under amended law (judgment reserved on 15 Dec 2022) has rejected […]
HC ruled that VCC, Charge sheets, suspension order would fall under purview of personal information as defined in Section 8(1)(J) of RTI Act
HC set aside order cancelling GST Registration of assessee due to non-filing of GST Returns for continuous period of 6 months, on the ground that GST Tribunal has not been constituted and assessee should not be left without remedy.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 in absence of any new information received by AO between the date of assessment order u/s 143(3) till the issuance of notice u/s 148 is unjustified and untenable in law.
Assessee directed by Madras HC to file representation for release of blocked funds w.r.t. alleged non-payment of GST & excess ITC availment
HC held that, providing opportunity of hearing would ensure observance of rules of natural justice and allow Respondent to pass appropriate and reasoned orders in order to serve interest of justice and allow a better appreciation to arise at appeal stage.
Order passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing to assessee. Hence, violative of principles of natural justice. Held that, SCN was vague & cryptic in nature and orders passed were beyond scope of SCN.
