Madras High Court condoned delay in filing an income tax return by a co-operative society, holding that small farmer-members should not suffer due to administrative lapses.
The Court stayed coercive recovery proceedings after noting allegations that adverse findings were based on witness statements without permitting cross-examination. The ruling emphasizes the importance of natural justice in adjudication proceedings.
The Court restrained coercive recovery proceedings after noting allegations that the adjudication order relied heavily on witness statements without permitting cross-examination. The ruling highlights the significance of procedural fairness in adjudication proceedings.
The Court held that a taxpayer who does not respond to a show cause notice cannot later invoke writ jurisdiction alleging procedural violations. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The Delhi High Court held that ₹25 lakh paid under a prior agreement to sell was deductible under Section 48(i) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the eventual transfer of the property.
Assessment orders passed pursuant to express liberty granted by the High Court during pendency of settlement-related litigation remain valid and enforceable. Mere keeping of demand in abeyance did not invalidate already communicated assessment orders, nor did it require passing of fresh assessment orders after rejection or abatement of settlement proceedings.
The Telangana High Court held that Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is confined to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to revisit the merits of an ITAT order.
The Telangana High Court granted interim protection against coercive GST recovery proceedings until the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational. The Court directed the taxpayer to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand and pursue the second appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed timeline.
The Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to withdraw the writ petition challenging a GST demand order and pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Telangana High Court held that if a Sub-Registrar refuses registration, reasons must be recorded and communicated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.
