Gujarat High Court sets aside Section 148 notice against AIM Fincon Pvt. Ltd., ruling it a mere change of opinion on already disclosed facts.
The Madras High Court has invalidated reassessment proceedings against Changepond Technologies, ruling they stemmed from a mere change of opinion, not new material.
Madras High Court held that denial of benefit of Notification No. 153/93-Cus dated 13.08.1993 to Software Technology Park on imports undertaken prior to CMDA approval not justified as substantial requirement of notification satisfied.
Madras High Court held that bank account which is designated pension account is exempted from any attachment for recovery of dues and attachment of such account is in violation of the provisions of the Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Act, 1871.
Madras High Court held that ITAT rightly deleted the addition on account of Mutual Fund Promotion Expenditure and Initial Public Offer Expenditure since the said expenses are incurred wholly for the purpose of business and hence the same are allowable expense.
Madras High Court held that Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme benefit is not admissible in case of assessments relating to search and seizure when the disputed tax exceeds INR 5 Crore. Therefore, writ petitions are dismissed.
Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged notices and orders issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Impugned Notice dated 31.03.2021 was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as in force till 31.03.2021.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when the financial capacity of the complainant is not established, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, order of Trial Court upheld and appeal of complainant dismissed.
Meghalaya High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable due to availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Also held that writ is not maintainable as there is no breach of principles of natural justice.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the Commissioner of Income Tax’s powers under Section 263, emphasizing the conditions for exercising revisional jurisdiction.
