The court recorded the Revenue’s statement withdrawing the suspension of registration and ordered immediate restoration. It held that further action must follow due process and proper hearing.
The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition as the Revenue had an effective statutory remedy by way of appeal. It held that issues of legal interpretation must be pursued through appellate mechanisms.
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 94(7) without verifying facts. The matter was remanded for fresh examination with proper opportunity to the assessee.
CIT Vs Patel Engg. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The appeals before the Bombay High Court arose from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Years 2000–01 and 2001–02. The central issue was whether the assessee qualified as a […]
The court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
The Court held that blocking ITC without available credit in the ledger is beyond statutory powers. It ruled that negative blocking is impermissible and directed restoration of the credit.
The case examined the validity of reassessment notices issued beyond the permissible period. The Court ruled that such notices are invalid in light of binding precedent, leading to quashing of the entire reassessment.
The Court held that membership cannot be granted where the underlying flats do not exist and are merely refuge areas. It ruled that agreements for such spaces are invalid and cannot confer membership rights, restoring the earlier rejection order.
The issue was whether procedural delays and challan errors could deny SVLDR benefits. The Court held that substantive compliance prevails and relief cannot be denied for technical defects.
The issue involved incorrect computation of interest on IGST refunds. The Court held that authorities failed to follow statutory provisions under Section 56. The key takeaway is that interest must be calculated strictly as per law.
