The Calcutta High Court set aside the Section 148A(3) order and Section 148 notice after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee’s detailed replies. The Court held that non-consideration of the replies violated the statutory requirement under Section 148A.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Section 148A(3) order and Section 148 notice after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessees complete replies. The Court held that non-consideration of the replies vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court held that Section 115JB was not applicable to Assessment Year 2011-12 as it became effective only from Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was dismissed in favour of the assessee.
The Calcutta High Court held that sales tax remission under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1993 was a capital receipt as it was intended to encourage capital investment and industrial expansion. It also decided the Section 80IA/80HHC issue in favour of the assessee.
The Calcutta High Court held that although the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, prolonged custody without trial justified grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions.
The Calcutta High Court held that a sanction order must reflect consideration of the taxpayer’s explanation and provide reasons for rejecting it. As these requirements were absent, the sanction order was quashed and remanded for reconsideration.
The Calcutta High Court granted the taxpayer an opportunity to reply after finding that the show cause notice was not received. The GST authority was directed to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.
The Calcutta High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot deny Form 5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme due to a technical portal error that wrongly mapped the taxpayer’s payment. It directed correction of the error and issuance of Form 5 after verification of the challan.
The Calcutta High Court held that KMC’s retrospective enhancement of Annual Valuation and consequential property tax demands lacked statutory authority and violated mandatory procedural safeguards. The Court restored the earlier valuation and permitted fresh assessment only in accordance with the KMC Act.
The Calcutta High Court held that a business has no legal right to compel ChatGPT to display its links or promote its platform. The Court refused interim relief after finding no prima facie legal right or intellectual property infringement.
