Bombay High Court allows revision under Section 264, addressing double taxation and rejecting the need for a revised return under Section 139(5).
Madras High Court allows Ohm Srinivasa Paper Boards to pay pending excise tax dues in 12 monthly installments, directing partial payment starting August 2024.
Rajasthan High Court dismisses PCIT appeal under Section 263, citing tax demand below Rs. 2 crore in case of Pratap Technocrats Pvt Ltd for AY 2018-19.
Volvo Group India Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: The order of the original authority becomes merged with the order of the Revisionary Authority. Since the Revisionary Authority was located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court, assessee had the option to file the petitions here or […]
Calcutta High Court held that no interest liability or penalty can be thrust on the petitioner since full amount of tax already paid as per orders referred to in Section 128A(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence order deemed to be concluded.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that attachment of account like Cash Credit or Overdraft by exercising powers conferred under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act untenable as bank doesn’t become a debtor.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained income sustained since assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of cash deposits in bank.
Madras High Court held that passing of order without considering reply and without granting opportunity of being heard is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly the order is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that that non-payment of dues for a period of three months is not a prescribed ground under section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. Thus, order set aside.
Madras High Court directs department to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on blocking the GST Electric Credit Ledger which was not considered by the department at the time of passing impugned order.
