Orissa High Court held that auction sale by the bank under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) justified as there was no information available with bank regarding existence of status quo order.
Delhi High Court held that demand of customs duty on account of failure to fulfil export obligations under Advance Authorization set aside as export obligation was fulfilled within extended period and redemption/discharge certificate was issued thereafter.
Punjab and Haryana High Court directed CBDT to issue a circular extending the ITR due date for audit cases to 30th November 2025. The extension follows Section 44AB and Explanation 2(a) to Section 139(1). Taxpayers now have sufficient time between submission of audit reports and filing of returns.
Madras High Court held that when the moisture content is below 10%, the same is to be considered only to be a roasted areca nut thus writ petition is disposed of with direction to the department to release the goods.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that order passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing is against the principle of natural justice. Further, the said order was also not served. Thus, order is set aside and matter restored back.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer needs to lift attachment of the property based on orders passed by the highest fact finding authority has attained finality and there is no payment pending on the part of the assessee.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 were void as notices were not validly served and proper approval from PCCIT was not obtained.
Bombay High Court set aside reassessment proceedings for AY 2016–17 as the sanction was granted by an unauthorized officer, holding that approval must come from senior authorities under Section 151(ii).
Bombay High Court held that reassessment for AY 2016–17 was invalid as the sanction was not obtained from the competent authority mandated under Section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act.
Delhi HC ruled that date of electronic upload of DRP directions on ITBA is date of receipt under Section 144C(13). AO’s final order passed a day late was held invalid, reaffirming that physical delivery is irrelevant once uploaded.
