The Calcutta High Court directed the Enforcement Directorate to question the petitioner in Kolkata instead of Delhi. The Court held that the alleged offence and the cause of action originated in West Bengal, making questioning in Kolkata appropriate.
The Calcutta High Court held that an assessment cannot survive where the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Calcutta High Court held that adjusting admitted refunds to recover more than 20% of disputed tax demand during the pendency of appeals was arbitrary and unsustainable. The excess amount was directed to be refunded.
The Calcutta High Court held that recovery exceeding 20% of the disputed tax demand during the pendency of an appeal before the CIT(A) was unsustainable in the absence of exceptional circumstances. It directed refund of the excess amount recovered.
The Calcutta High Court held that adjustment of a tax refund against a disputed demand could not be sustained while the stay application and appeal were pending. It directed release of the refund with statutory interest and restrained coercive recovery until the stay application is decided.
The Calcutta High Court held that prepayment charges, commitment charges and processing fees formed part of the recoverable debt under the lending arrangement. The bank was therefore entitled to retain the pledged FDR until all contractual liabilities were discharged.
The High Court found that the appellate authority had failed to act on the Tribunal’s direction requiring a speaking order for Assessment Year 2015-16. Holding that prolonged administrative inaction cannot leave an assessee without a remedy, the Court ordered time-bound disposal of the appeal.
The High Court found that withdrawal of garnishee notices and compliance with the CBDT Office Memoranda entitled the assessee to stay of recovery. It held the subsequent refund adjustments to be legally unsustainable.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision allowing Section 11 exemption after applying CBDT Circular No. 16 of 2022 permitting condonation of delayed Form 10B. It held that the Revenue failed to show why the circular was inapplicable.
The Calcutta High Court permitted the petitioner to be represented before the ED by an authorised representative after considering his age and medical condition. The Court directed that personal appearance could be required later with at least 15 days’ notice.
