The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be reopened merely on suspicion arising from investigation reports. The Court ruled that “reason to believe” must be based on independent application of mind and material evidence.
The Calcutta High Court restrained the Income Tax Department from taking coercive steps in reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the Section 148 notice issued in December 2024 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149.
The Calcutta High Court considered the petitioner’s request for adjournment of GST enquiry proceedings after he claimed inability to appear due to a leg fracture. The Court sought instructions on whether appearance could be made after 15 days.
The Calcutta High Court held that the assessing officer misconstrued CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2024 while rejecting carry forward of loss due to a seven-day filing delay. The Court directed the authorities to condone the delay and process the return according to law.
The High Court ruled that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 was unsustainable because the Assessing Officer’s reasons amounted only to suspicion and not a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment.
The Calcutta High Court directed GSTN authorities to carry out backend changes after the GST portal failed to process the taxpayer’s request to opt out of the QRMP Scheme. The Court permitted migration to monthly GST return filing from March 2026.
The Calcutta High Court held that filing an audit report in Form 10BB instead of Form 10B was a procedural lapse that could not defeat substantive exemption rights under Section 12A. The Court directed the authority to decide the condonation application within a specified timeline.
The Calcutta High Court held that a rectification order under Section 154 passed after the statutory limitation period was without jurisdiction. The Court consequently quashed the order and related recovery proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court refused to entertain the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 had been constituted. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal.
The High Court held that adjustment of refunds beyond 20% of disputed tax demand during pendency of appeal was unsustainable without proper justification. It directed refund of the excess amount adjusted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act.
