The Calcutta High Court stayed proceedings under Section 279(1) after the petitioner challenged the prosecution sanction, citing lack of collegium approval and denial of personal hearing.
The Calcutta High Court stayed further proceedings under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, citing questions on jurisdiction and compliance with CBDT circulars for alleged tax evasion.
Holding the issue covered by binding precedent, the Court ruled that reassessment proceedings not conducted in a faceless manner are unsustainable in law.
High Court held that reassessment notices issued without adopting the faceless mechanism prescribed under the statutory scheme were invalid, vitiating all consequential proceedings.
The court held that notices meant to be issued by a Faceless Assessment Officer cannot be validly issued by a Jurisdictional Officer, quashing the notices while keeping Revenue’s rights open.
The court ruled that once purchases are found unproved, restricting additions to a profit percentage is incorrect. Full disallowance is required under Section 69C where genuineness is not established.
The Gujarat High Court upheld a Section 148 notice issued by the JAO during search and seizure under Section 132, ruling that faceless automated allocation is not mandatory in such cases.
High Court condones 1,257-day delay in filing Form 10B for AY 2016-17, recognizing that the petitioner filed returns manually on time and delay was due to bona fide professional oversight.
Bombay High Court condones 2732-day delay in electronic filing of Form 10B, recognizing manual filing within the prescribed period and bona fide professional advice.
Delhi High Court held that provision of support service in India to foreign universities and institutions qualifies as export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the same is not ‘intermediary’ in terms of rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.
