Once an appellate authority like the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT deleted a tax addition and assessee’s liability stood discharged, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound to give effect to such order and lift the attachment.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2014–15 were time-barred and quashed notices and orders issued under Sections 148 and 148A.
The Bombay High Court quashed the AAR’s ruling that denied Mauritius DTAA benefits to Bid Services Division (Mauritius) Limited. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to treaty protection on capital gains from the sale of MIAL shares. It ruled that legitimate corporate structures cannot be disregarded merely for resulting in tax advantages.
Telangana High Court ruled that procedural defects and delayed order communication justified reconsideration of Padmaja Gas Agencies’ GST appeal.
The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment notice and order against Sarthak Gupta for AY 2014–15, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajeev Bansal.
The Court directed tax authorities to share material forming the basis of a ₹1.79 crore GST demand with the petitioner, citing violation of natural justice if withheld.
The Madras High Court refused bail to Mukesh Kumar accused of managing dummy firms and availing fraudulent ITC worth ₹19.76 crore under the CGST Act.
The Gujarat High Court held that SEZ units can claim refunds of unutilized IGST credit distributed by Input Service Distributors, setting aside the appellate order against Ajanta Pharma.
Court stayed reassessment notices issued under Section 148, holding that proceedings must comply with the amended faceless regime under the Finance Act, 2021.
The Allahabad High Court directed tax authorities to give assessees a chance to object before reassessment, reaffirming principles from GKN Driveshafts v. ITO.
