Assessee has every right to know reasons for passing a demand order against him, said High Court of Tripura by setting aside impugned non-speaking demand order.
Keenara Industries Private Limited Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) In the case of Keenara Industries Private Limited Vs ITO and other 256 cases Gujarat High Court set aside Notices under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and impugned orders under section 148A(d) on the ground of limitation. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH […]
PCIT Vs Durgapur Projects Limited (Calcutta High Court) Whether provisions of Section 50C can be applied when the immovable property is compulsorily acquired by the Government? Whether the definition of transfer u/s 2(47) can be considered for applying Section 50C or only when the transfer involves payment of stamp duty that the provisions of Section […]
HC held that, the purpose of a SCN is to enable the noticee to meet the allegations, on the basis of which an adverse action is proposed. Further, the procedure adopted by the Revenue Department is flawed and the order for cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, in absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts fully and truly during the regular assessment proceedings, is mere change of opinion and hence liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court held that provision u/s 14(2) of the Income Tax Act does not empower the AO to apply Rule 8D straightaway without considering the correctness of the assessees claim in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income.
Gujarat High Court held that it is settled legal position that authority cannot issue show cause notice after a period of three years for assessment/ export period. Accordingly, notice cannot be issued beyond the period of 3 years of payment of the duty drawback.
Bombay High Court held that material on record doesnt satisfy that all the steps for recovering the tax dues from the company, accordingly, action under section 179 of the Income Tax Act against the directors for recovering the tax dues is unjustified.
Gujarat High Court held that order of cancellation of GST Registration passed without determination of the amount which is to be paid by the petitioner-assessee is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
The petitioner claims that he apprehends that a demand of GST may be raised on him on account of fraudulent actions of the persons who have registered a firm in his name. He also claims that the said unknown persons have been filing returns without his knowledge. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner had also made a representation to the Delhi Police, which is pending action.
