Delhi High Court held that amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 ( SVLDRS ) cannot be more than the amount confirmed vide Order-In-Original.
CIT Vs Machino Techno Sales Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Whether area sharing by the land owner is eligible to be treated as capital gains in a development agreement and not business income? The division bench of Calcutta high court in this case was considering appeal of department where the ITAT Kolkata benches held that the […]
Reopening notice was issued without any tangible material. Mere change of opinion not provide jurisdiction to Revenue to re-open assessment.
Delhi High Court held that as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra, all dues including statutory dues shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of dues for period prior to date on which approval to resolution plan is granted could be continued.
Madras High Court held that writ petition not entertained as petitioner failed to make use of opportunities granted by the department to respond to the notices.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment on the basis of change of opinion without reasons to indicate failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all the material facts is untenable in law.
Bombay High Court held that assessment order was passed after post considering the submission from the assessee regarding deduction under section 80P. Hence, reopening of assessment in absence of any new tangible material is unsustainable in law.
Keenara Industries Private Limited Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) HC held that substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 shall be applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and as per First Proviso to Section 149, limitation as specified under unamended provision as it stood prior to 01.04.2021, shall be applicable. As per unamended provision prescribing limitation, no notice can […]
Tripura High Court set aside impugned order and remanded back to the Respondents for passing the order after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Assessing Officer cannot pass an order on the basis of pure suspicion and surmised without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing the case which is sought to be made out in assessment order
