High Court dismissed writ petition, confirming that reassessment under Section 147 is valid when no incriminating material is found, and Section 153C is inapplicable.
The Calcutta High Court remanded the matter for adjudicating authority to compute service tax on consolidated rental income exceeding threshold limits. Co-owners are not treated as a single entity merely due to a joint account arrangement.
The court ruled that the petitioner cannot challenge a GST refund rejection via writ, as a statutory appeal exists. The order upheld the authority’s jurisdiction in processing refunds.
The Court held that uploading the show-cause notice only under the additional tab did not constitute valid service. The order and appeal rejection were set aside, and the petitioner was granted a fresh opportunity to reply.
The Court held that disputed factual issues must be examined through the statutory appellate mechanism and dismissed the writ appeal, directing the appellant to pursue the remedy under the GST Act.
Calcutta High Court rules that the Income Tax Department cannot retain a refund under Section 245 without an outstanding tax liability, ordering release of Rs.22,73,833/- with interest.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal against the ITAT, holding that the assessee properly identified shareholders and explained the share premium, making Section 68 inapplicable. The ruling confirms that proper documentation can prevent share capital additions.
Calcutta High Court held that the bail application of the petitioner involved in economic offence of more than Rs. 6200 crores rejected since there are 444 cases pending against the petitioner and also there are chances of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
Court condoned a 27-day delay in filing an appeal and held that pre-deposit must be computed only on disputed tax. The matter was remanded for fresh calculation and reconsideration.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the petitioner’s repatriation under DOPT OM 17-06-2010. The CAT’s findings on unsuitability and compliance with notice requirements were upheld.
