The High Court held that once a discharge certificate under the SVLDRS scheme is issued after payment of the determined amount, the tax demand for the covered period cannot be reopened.
The Madras High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where a DTAA claim was made based on a bona fide interpretation of law and full disclosure of income.
The High Court upheld a ₹7 lakh addition after finding a major discrepancy between stock recorded in books and the inflated stock statement submitted to the bank.
The High Court set aside a tax demand issued under Section 156 because it was not based on any assessment or reassessment order. The ruling held that a demand notice cannot exist without a prior order determining tax liability.
The High Court noted that large penalties were imposed on corporate entities while the individual accused faced only a limited penalty, making the restriction on travel unjustified.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered refund of IGST paid on ocean freight, holding that the levy under Notification No.10/2017 was invalid following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohit Minerals.
The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail while directing the accused to cooperate with investigation, surrender passport and avoid influencing witnesses. The Court held that bail would stand cancelled if the conditions are violated.
The Telangana High Court refused anticipatory bail after noting that the accused had left India, a non-bailable warrant had been issued, and a Red Corner Notice was in force. The Court held that such circumstances weighed against granting pre-arrest protection.
The Court emphasized that revisionary powers under Section 264 are broad and intended to correct mistakes causing injustice to taxpayers. Authorities must examine the claim on merits rather than dismiss it on technical grounds.
Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that deduction claim under section 35(2AB) had already been examined during original scrutiny assessment. Reopening based on same material was held to be a change of opinion and therefore invalid.
