Gujarat High Court upholds ITAT ruling in PCIT vs Shreeji Prints, rejecting revision under Section 263 over inquiries into unsecured loans.
St. Jude Medical India Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court has disposed of a petition filed by St. Jude Medical India Private Limited against the Union of India and other respondents. The case, argued by advocate Bharat Raichandani on behalf of advocate Rithik Jain for the petitioner, […]
Madras High Court upholds RBI’s Net Owned Fund (NOF) rules for NBFCs, affirming compliance requirements and rejecting challenges to financial component inclusion.
Karnataka High Court dismisses writ petition challenging a tax liability order under Section 179 of the IT Act, citing an alternative remedy under Section 264.
Gujarat High Court rules write-back of provisions isn’t ‘turnover’ or ‘gross receipts’ under Sec 44AB, quashing tax return invalidation. Cites ICAI notes.
Madras High Court directed to consider Section 16(5), inserted vide Section 118 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, for Input Tax Credit claimed beyond period stipulated u/s. 16(4) of the GST Act. Thus, writ disposed of accordingly.
Telangana High Court held that non-consideration of objection while passing order is breach of principles of natural justice and accordingly the order is liable to be set aside and matter is remitted back to original authority to re-hear and pass fresh order.
Gujarat High Court held that re-opening of assessment solely relying upon information made available on the insight portal, without forming any independent opinion, is unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that cash is explicitly excluded from the definition of goods provided u/s. 2(52) hence seizure of cash and other valuable u/s. 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 is not tenable. Accordingly, writ allowed with direction to release amount to petitioner.
Gujarat High Court held that passing of order u/s. 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act without considering reply filed by the petitioner by not granting adjournment time as prescribed u/s. 148A(b). Thus, order quashed and matter remanded back.
