The Court held that ITC earlier denied as time-barred cannot stand after the retrospective relaxation under Section 16(5), reinforcing substantive credit rights.
Calcutta High Court held that in a proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act of 1961, the PCIT is empowered to make such inquiry as he deems necessary and inspection of seized assets may very well form part of such inquiry. Accordingly, notice of inspection is duly sustainable and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on material seized in a third-party search must proceed under Section 153C, not Section 148. Notices issued under the general reassessment provision were set aside.
The High Court held that statutory bodies can surrender approval under one exemption provision and seek notification under another. Authorities were directed to process applications under Section 10(46).
The High Court held that failure to pass a reasoned final order on an informant’s reward violates the 2007 Guidelines and directed the competent committee to reconsider the claim after hearing the informant.
The Delhi High Court refused to quash the CBIC circular assigning “proper officer” functions, holding that it was issued with due authority and carries a presumption of validity.
The Court quashed a GST demand where discrepancies arose from double entry in returns, granting a fresh hearing subject to a 25% pre-deposit and directing reconsideration on merits.
The High Court allowed manual filing of GSTR-3B where ITC could not be claimed due to an earlier error. The Court clarified that such filing would not automatically affect the confirmed tax demand.
The Court held that ITC could not be denied where the March 2020 return was filed before the cut-off date under Section 16(5). The ruling clarifies that Section 16(5) overrides the time limit in Section 16(4).
The court halted enforcement of a GST demand after finding that seized documents and a computer were not returned, denying a fair hearing and effective defence.
