Patna High Court held that the order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Vidisha Singhal Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) AO admits that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is riddled with mistakes. He further admits that in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the details of the transactions allegedly carried out by the petitioner were not correct. He states that […]
Jamna Devi Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) The matter comes up for consideration of the application (CMCC No.97/2022) preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant-assessee with a prayer to condone the delay of 1060 days caused in filing the present income tax appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has […]
Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Vidya W/O Sagar Aitawade (Karnataka High Court) The cheque in question was issued on 01.08.2019. The petitioners, who were the Directors of the Company, ceased to be the Directors of the Company with effect from 22.03.2017 which is evident from the Form No.DIR-12 issued by Registrar of the Companies and the same […]
The attachment as per Section 83(2) shall cease to have effect after a period of one year from date of order of attachment. Thus, pending writ petition, the impugned order has ceased to have effect, as on 15.09.2020.
Mittal International Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 26th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Learned counsel for the […]
A scheme has been formulated whereunder issuance of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act has to be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, whereas in the instant case, the aforesaid procedure has not been followed, rather the notice has been issued by a particular person and not in a face less manner.
Calcutta High Court in the case of Maxxcab Wires & Cables Pvt Ltd & Anr vs State Tax Officer held that the Non-speaking Order under Goods and Services Tax is not valid.
Gujarat High Court in case of Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat held that mere expiry of e-way bill during transit of vehicle cannot be a valid ground for detention and seizure.
It was the specific case of Mr. Chandubhai Bhagwandas Patel wherein even though Form GSTR-1 for the month of August 2019 was correctly filed declaring all the relevant details qua outward supplies appropriately, refund of IGST paid upon export of goods was denied to the petitioner due to mistake being committed in Form GSTR-3B for the said month.
