Gujarat High Court held that reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since income earned in NRE Account is exempt under section 10(4)(ii) of the Act and hence there is no question of escapement of income.
Madras High Court modified the conditions for provisional release of goods [Viscose Knitted Fabric] due to alleged undervaluation and misclassification and directed to pay entire declared duty; 50% of differential duty and execute bond of specified sum.
Since voluntarily filed returns could not be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963) and additional evidence was inadmissible and that the seized cash was rightly treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, taxable under Section 115BBE.
Kerala High Court held that order passed without granting reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, whose statements were relied on in the orders is not tenable. Accordingly, order is quashed with direction to reconsider the matter.
Bombay High Court admits challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act on supplier tax default, granting conditional stay amid conflicting High Court rulings on ITC validity.
Voluntary admission of turnover suppression made by a dealer at the time of inspection carried strong evidentiary value and could not be retracted without credible evidence. Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal erred in setting aside the assessment, as their reasoning was contrary to the evidence on record.
Calcutta High Court held that section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act makes the property tax dues as first charge on the property hence refusal to grant mutation on account of outstanding property tax fully justified.
Kerala High Court held that as the gold claimed by the petitioner, is already assessed in the name of the husband of the petitioner, and the proceedings in respect of the same are concluded, the petitioner cannot make a further claim in respect of the same. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Provident fund dues were protected by statute and same were excluded from the liquidation estate of a company under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, thus, could not be denied to claimants on grounds of delay as it would defeat the object of protecting employees’ social security.
Delhi High Court held that Section 20 stipulates a defined mechanism for the retention of seized property or records, it is imperative that such procedure is strictly followed. Thus, retention of seized property without following procedure stipulated under section 20 of PMLA is not justifiable.
