Delhi High Court held that petitioner is duly entitled for interest under section 42(1) of Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (the DVAT Act) since refund withheld unjustifiably.
The department issued notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the petitioner had received loan from its 100% subsidiary i.e., Gul Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Bombay HC rules that only Faceless Assessing Officers can issue Sec 148 notices, quashing those issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers.
Madras High Court held that even though the time limit is not prescribed for filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same should be filed within a reasonable time.
Associated Chambers of Commerce And Industry of India Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that action of reassessment merely on the allegation of delayed digital filing of Form 10 without based on the formation of an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Facts- […]
Madras High Court held that personal hearing through video conferencing or other mode was not provided inspite of specific request. Hence, order passed without satisfying mandatory requirement of section 144B of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
Rajasthan High Court dismisses Revenue appeals in PCIT vs. Sonal Jain, finding no substantial legal questions. Tribunal order stands.
Madras High Court held that petitioner providing services to National Highways Department of India (NHAI) is not liable to pay GST till either invoice is raised or amount/ payment is received in Annuities.
Delhi High Court held that in case of search, block period of ten years for search assessment, would not be attracted in case the search has taken place before 1st April 2017.
Rajasthan High Court held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit sustained as assessee failed to discharge initial onus of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction.
