The court held that revision under section 263 requires independent satisfaction by the PCIT. Acting merely on the Assessing Officer’s view renders the revision order invalid.
The case addressed whether a demand based on a draft order can be enforced. The Court held that tax liability crystallizes only after final assessment. Key takeaway: draft orders have no enforceable value.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that absence of fraud or tax evasion justified granting an opportunity for restoration. The key takeaway is that procedural defaults may be cured through compliance.
The court held that granting status quo over the full property was disproportionate to the plaintiff’s limited claim. It set aside the injunction for failing to consider balance of convenience.
The Court held that a separate meeting of sub-class shareholders is not required when identical terms are offered to the entire class. It upheld that uniform treatment satisfies statutory requirements under Section 106.
The Court condoned a 179-day delay and admitted the appeal on questions involving Section 263. It will examine whether the Tribunal erred in quashing revisionary action.
The Calcutta High Court declined to interfere with an income tax assessment order, holding that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory appeal remedy is available. The Court directed the assessee to pursue the appellate process.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the freezing of a bank account after finding that cyber authorities had directed the freeze without obtaining a Magistrate’s order under the BNSS procedure.
The High Court held that Section 94 of the BNSS only allows authorities to call for documents and does not empower police to freeze bank accounts. Since the account was frozen without proper statutory authority, the action was declared illegal.
Calcutta High Court held that GST circulars issued in 2022 cannot retrospectively restrict refund claims when the taxpayer’s right to claim refund had already accrued and the application was filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54.
