Delhi High Court held that circular/ instruction no. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 states that prosecution normally be not initiated against a person who has attained the age of 70 years at the time of commission of offence. However, petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of Circular/ Instruction No. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 to find an escape route for the wrong committed by him.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant possessed properties disproportionate to his known source of income. Accordingly, appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and hence bail granted.
Lupin Ltd. Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The petitioner challenged ex-parte order refund cannot be rejected merely for non-submission of documents. Relies upon the rule 90(3) and proviso thereto of CGST Rules. The Petitioner challenged ex-parte order rejecting claim for refund on the ground of non-submission of documents. Argues that the circular […]
Delhi High Court held that in view of provisions of section 469 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, complaint filed after expiry of six months is barred by limitation.
Telangana HC follows SC Judgment in Filco Trade on opening of GST Portal for claiming transitional credit for two months from 01.09.2022 to 30.10.2022.
Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Rani Girdhar v. ITO held that Assessing officer cannot add primary allegation in Notice by issuing Supplementary Notice.
Opportunity to cross examine witnesses not given to petitioner. Rule of alternate remedy not a bar for High Court to exercise Writ jurisdiction.
Pallavi Naresh Shah Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) No reply was filed by the assessee due to technical glitch on portal. order passed subsequently, under Section 147 r/w section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 set aside. Matter remanded back. The Petitioner challenged the order of assessment passed under section 147 read […]
Impugned show cause notices are void and bad-in-law in view of non-adjudication after a lapse of nearly 10 years from the date of issuance of first show cause notice.
HC held that genuine hardship faced by tax consultant which led to omission of timely filing of petitioner’s return sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b)
