The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
The Jharkhand High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 147A removed the jurisdictional challenge against reassessment notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A. The petition was disposed of without quashing the proceedings.
The High Court ruled that deduction of broken period interest on HTM securities was a settled legal issue and could not justify reopening of assessment. The reassessment proceedings were set aside as lacking legal basis.
High Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings could not culminate in dismissal without granting the employee an opportunity of personal hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced compensation after holding that one income tax return reflected earnings only up to the accident date and could not be treated as annual income.
The Karnataka High Court accepted a mediation settlement in a prolonged land acquisition dispute after parties agreed on compensation, interest, and payment timelines. The Court held that the settlement would replace earlier awards and decrees under Section 89 CPC.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment proceedings must be conducted only under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The reassessment notice was quashed after the Court relied on an earlier Division Bench ruling.
The Bombay High Court held that transportation services in CIF imports form part of a composite supply and cannot be taxed separately under GST. The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mohit Minerals to quash the demand.
The Madras High Court held that the option under Section 36(1)(vii-a) of the Income Tax Act belongs exclusively to the assessee and cannot be substituted by the Assessing Officer. The Court directed recomputation of taxable income after rejecting the Department’s restrictive interpretation.
The Karnataka High Court directed release of goods and conveyance after noting that the petitioner had already complied with the appellate authority’s order imposing 200% tax penalty under Section 129(1)(a). The Court required an indemnity bond pending conclusion of revisional proceedings.
