The Calcutta High Court held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely due to disagreement with the Assessing Officers view. Since the AO conducted proper inquiry and followed CBDT instructions, revision was quashed and LTCG treatment on unlisted shares was upheld.
Observing that Rule 86A is meant to secure revenue pending adjudication, the Court found the officer’s stance legally unsustainable and mandated time-bound decision-making.
The High Court set aside the appellate order for questioning transaction genuineness without prior notice, reiterating that authorities cannot go beyond the original show cause notice.
The Court granted interim relief after noting absence of proof that mandatory approval under Section 151 was served on the assessee. It held that the petitioner had made out an arguable case warranting stay of the Section 148 notice.
The Calcutta High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration, noting it was based solely on non-filing of returns for six months. The Court granted the taxpayer four weeks to file returns and clear dues for restoration.
Holding that GST registration is not confined to individual districts, the Court ruled that the eligibility condition lacked rational nexus with procurement objectives. The clause was struck down as unconstitutional.
The High Court quashed a decades-old TDS prosecution after compounding fees and interest were fully paid. It held that revival of trial violated the right to a speedy trial and constituted abuse of process.
The High Court quashed an assessment order passed without granting personal hearing despite a written request. It held that refusal on technical grounds violated principles of natural justice.
The Court held that an employee must be given access to documents relied upon for dismissal, including the Police Verification Report. It directed the department to furnish the report while keeping the merits of termination open.
The High Court upheld rejection of a tender bid due to non-submission of EMD, ruling that mere assembly of purchased components did not qualify as manufacturing. The petitioner was not entitled to MSME exemption.
