The Bombay High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the assessments were not completed within the statutory period. It quashed the notices issued for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2019-20.
The Calcutta High Court held that an assessment cannot survive where the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Calcutta High Court held that adjusting admitted refunds to recover more than 20% of disputed tax demand during the pendency of appeals was arbitrary and unsustainable. The excess amount was directed to be refunded.
The Calcutta High Court held that recovery exceeding 20% of the disputed tax demand during the pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A) was unsustainable in the absence of exceptional circumstances. It directed refund of the excess amount recovered.
The Calcutta High Court held that adjustment of a tax refund against a disputed demand could not be sustained while the stay application and appeal were pending. It directed release of the refund with statutory interest and restrained coercive recovery until the stay application is decided.
The High Court held that Rule 86A permits blocking only of input tax credit actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Negative blocking beyond the available balance was declared unsustainable, while preserving the department’s statutory recovery powers.
The Kerala High Court held that banks are not required to obtain approval from the Local Level Committee under the National Trust Act before enforcing security interests under the SARFAESI Act. The Court also ruled that challenges to SARFAESI proceedings should ordinarily be pursued before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The Rajasthan High Court directed taxpayers to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Appeals filed within 30 days must be decided on merits without examining limitation.
The Calcutta High Court held that prepayment charges, commitment charges and processing fees formed part of the recoverable debt under the lending arrangement. The bank was therefore entitled to retain the pledged FDR until all contractual liabilities were discharged.
The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of ITC under Rule 86A after finding that the Revenue had recorded adequate material supporting its reasons to believe the transactions were fraudulent. The Court also directed the Department to complete the consequential proceedings expeditiously.
