The Allahabad High Court held that a bona fide typographical error in the date of birth could be corrected since it did not confer any eligibility advantage. It quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to conduct the petitioner’s detailed medical examination.
The Madras High Court directed unblocking of the electronic credit ledger upon deposit of Rs. 5 lakh and ordered adjudication of the DRC-01 notice on merits within a stipulated period.
The Madras High Court held that delayed transfer of seized documents under Section 132(9A) did not invalidate notices issued under Section 153A. It ruled that the statutory time limit is directory and the assessment proceedings can continue.
The Gujarat High Court held that exporters may apply for RoDTEP benefits even if the claim was not mentioned in the shipping bills. It directed that such omission should not be treated as a waiver or result in rejection of the claim.
The Gujarat High Court held that exporters who exported sugar with the prescribed permission of the Directorate of Sugar were entitled to RoDTEP benefits. It directed the authorities to grant the rebate despite the export policy being classified as restricted.
The Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal rightly deleted the addition after finding that the Assessing Officer had not verified the assessees claim. It ruled that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the Revenues appeal.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunals order, holding that acceptance of the assessees explanation on reconciliation of professional receipts did not raise any substantial question of law.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reassessment proceedings after holding that approval was granted by the PCIT instead of the competent authority under Section 151(ii). The Court applied its earlier ruling and set aside the order and notice.
The High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C cannot be initiated without incriminating material relating to the specific assessment year. It quashed the notice and all consequential proceedings.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were invalid because the sanction was granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, as required under Section 151(ii). The Court quashed both the Section 148A(d) order and the Section 148 notice.
