The Gujarat High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 cannot be based on third-party loose papers that fail to establish a live link with the assessee. The Court quashed the notice as the material was vague and unrelated to the petitioner’s transaction.
The Gujarat High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings after holding that they were founded on an undated and uninvestigated complaint without any direct link to the petitioner. The Court found the reopening to be based on conjectures and surmises.
The Calcutta High Court held that sales tax remission under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993 was a capital receipt as it was intended to encourage capital investment and industrial expansion. It also decided the Section 80IA/80HHC issue in favour of the assessee.
The Orissa High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated nearly 17 years after the relevant tax period were barred by limitation under the Odisha Entry Tax Act. The Court quashed the notices and reassessment order as being without jurisdiction.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment beyond four years was invalid because the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. The notice under Section 148 and related proceedings were quashed.
The Bombay High Court held that sanction under Section 151(i) instead of Section 151(ii) for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 rendered reassessment notices invalid. It also quashed the consequential assessment orders and demand notices.
The Bombay High Court upheld the CESTAT’s finding that there was no evidence the Customs Broker advised the importer to violate customs laws or evade examination. It dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that no substantial question of law arose.
The Karnataka High Court held that filing a revision petition under Section 264 established the assessee’s knowledge of the tax demand. It upheld the refusal to condone the delay of about eight years in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Bombay High Court held that Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act does not authorize the Charity Commissioner to direct enrollment of new members or fresh elections. Orders issued beyond statutory powers were declared without jurisdiction.
The Bombay High Court held that recovery proceedings cannot continue while the statutory period to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act remains available. It ruled that premature recovery would render the statutory appellate remedy ineffective.
