The Bombay High Court upheld ITAT’s ruling that payments for Business Information Reports did not attract TDS under Section 195. The decision relied on consistent AAR rulings on identical facts.
The Court held that once a resolution plan is approved, prior tax liabilities stand extinguished. Reassessment under Section 148 was therefore unsustainable.
The High Court held that once a resolution plan under IBC extinguishes prior tax liabilities, reassessment cannot be initiated. The notice under Section 148 was set aside. The ruling confirms that extinguished claims cannot be revived through reassessment.
The Court held that delay caused by reliance on a consultant and personal hardship constitutes sufficient cause. It restored the appeal to ensure adjudication on merits.
The case involved detention of goods where the taxpayer cited vehicle breakdown as the cause of delay. The court quashed the order for non-consideration of the reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The case involved conflicting reasons between the show-cause notice and final order, with no proper consideration of the reply. The court held such inconsistency invalid and restored the registration.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond the statutory six-year limitation period is invalid. It ruled that expired limitation cannot be revived through later amendments, rendering the reassessment void.
The court held that reassessment notices for A.Y. 2015–16 issued after 1 April 2021 are invalid based on the Revenue’s concession before the Supreme Court. All consequential proceedings were set aside.
The court held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be granted where no return of income is filed. The key takeaway is that claiming deduction in a valid return is mandatory.
The Karnataka High Court held that property contributed as capital to a partnership becomes firm property. The individual or family rights cannot be claimed once ownership is transferred to the firm.
