Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act based on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement is tenable as Supreme Court has not given direction to reopen completed assessment.
Delhi High Court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration without assigning reason in SCN and in final order is unjustifiable. Accordingly, writ allowed and order cancelling registration quashed.
Delhi High Court held that section 67(7) of the CGST Act mandates that notice of extension of the seizure is required to be issued to the assessee prior to conclusion of the six-month period. Thus, seized goods are directed to be released.
Madras High Court directed to expeditiously dispose of the appeal filed before Appellate Authority and also held that stay granted shall continue to operate till the disposal of pending appeal.
Bombay High Court dismissed PCIT’s appeal in the case against Jayesh V. Sheth due to CBDT tax effect guidelines. Key legal interpretations and implications discussed.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration) based on office order dated 3rd April 2018 is legal since MOF has only allocated work relating to all disciplinary matter to MOS and there is no sub-delegation of work.
Kerala High Court held that commencement of GST audit u/s. 65 means date on which records and documents are made available by registered person. Hence, GST audit ought to be completed within 3 months from the said date.
Madras High Court held that extension of period for bringing immovable property to sale by auction is justifiable since time limit got extended as per proviso to rule 68B. Thus, writ petition stands dismissed.
Gujarat High Court held that refund entitled to assessee on the basis of order passed by CIT(A) cannot be unjustifiably adjusted against subsequent year’s demand. Accordingly, AO directed to credit refund amount in bank account of the petitioner.
Bombay High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal in PCIT Vs Umesh Ishrani case, citing lack of corroboration for loose paper evidence in cash payment additions.
