Kerala High Court denies tax refund in Kadavalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs ITO case, orders swift resolution of pending appeals by ITAT
Madras High Court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer since Assessing Officer failed to consider the reply/ objections made by the petitioner. Passing of order without considering the reply/objection results into non-speaking order.
Mr Sujeet Singh Hussain, in whose name M/s Madhu Enterprises was registered, had stated that he was working as a security guard in the office of present applicants, who got his signatures for opening the bank account and fraudulently got the firm registered in his name as well as other employees.
Bombay High Court acquits CA Gordhanbhai Madhabhai Savalia, citing inordinate delay, lack of evidence, and legal complexities in professional misconduct case.
Delhi High Court held the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as liable to be set aside as AO failed to demonstrate that explanation given by the assessee was deficient.
Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that as the seizure of shawls containing prohibited material took place in Delhi, therefore, Delhi Court will be having jurisdiction in the matter and not the court of Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh.
Compensation received for non-carrying of business was capital in nature as the operation of non- compete agreement was for 10 years and for the period in which the non-compete agreement was to operate, assessee’s source of income had been clamped.
In the Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Union of India case, Rajasthan High Court ensures GST refund isn’t denied solely due to multiple inputs and outputs.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) without issuance of show cause notice or opportunity notice is against the principle of natural justice and hence untenable-in-law.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act merely based on ‘borrowed satisfaction’ as against statutory requirement of ‘independent satisfaction’ is bad-in-law.
