The Karnataka High Court quashed an assessment order after finding that allegations concerning 119 apartment sales were introduced without prior notice during Section 148A proceedings. The Court granted the taxpayer an opportunity to submit a detailed response before fresh consideration.
The Kerala High Court set aside the ITAT and CIT(E) orders after finding that the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 had not been properly examined. The Court directed the Commissioner to reconsider the trust’s request for registration from 1 April 2021 after granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Bombay High Court restrained authorities from initiating prosecution or penalty proceedings while considering a challenge to provisions of the Black Money Act. The Court allowed appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) to continue.
Considering Clauses 7 and 7.1 of the 2022 Circular, the Court found that the amount in question appeared to be compensation rather than payment for a supply. It consequently stayed coercive measures until the matter is finally adjudicated.
The Allahabad High Court held that GST appellate authorities cannot dismiss appeals solely on limitation without examining the actual date of communication of orders. The Court ruled that the burden lies on the Revenue to rebut an assessee’s declared date of communication with cogent evidence.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a service tax order passed under the Finance Act, 1994 after finding that the petitioner alleged lack of notice and denial of an opportunity to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order after finding that the reopening of assessment proceeded on incorrect facts regarding alleged exempt income from penny stock transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the competent authority to decide a representation alleging fraudulent GST record manipulation and misappropriation of GST amounts. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits and required a reasoned order within one month.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s guidance on general public utility institutions, the Court observed that entities engaged in professional or trade-related activities warrant detailed scrutiny. The case was remanded for re-examination under the revised legal standards.
The Madras High Court held that provisions for bad and doubtful debts must be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JA because of the retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. However, it permitted audit reports for deduction claims to be filed at the appellate stage.
