Ernst And Young U.S. LLP Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Court is of the view that the Petitioner-Assessee has a right to get adequate time in accordance with the Act to submit its reply. Section 148A(b) permits the Assessing Officer to suo moto provide up to thirty days period to an assessee to respond to […]
Mandatory requirement of pre-show cause notice consultation, as embedded in Rule 142 (1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 – Voluntary statement cannot substitute pre-show cause notice consultation
Abhishek Gumber Vs Commissioner of GST (Delhi High Court) The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), show cause notice for a particular cause of action can be issued either under Section 73 or Section 74 of the said Act and once […]
Alpha Corp Development files writ petition for prompt decision on rectification applications and refund. Delhi HC directs Revenue to act within eight weeks.
Once the statute provided for payment of interest and the stipulated conditions were fulfilled, the respondent/revenue would be obliged, in law, to pay the interest alongwith the refund. The fact that assessee submitted a communication that it will not claim interest, would not bar assessee from claiming the interest, as the law otherwise allowed for the same.
Explore the Delhi High Court judgment in Davinder Singh Thapar vs. ACIT, highlighting the invalidity of notices against a deceased assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
Bail granted on the basis that there is no substantial allegation that the accused failed to comply with any such notices during the period of investigation. No material has been placed on record to establish any change of circumstances on the basis of which their arrest could have been considered
Delhi High Court invalidates 2018-19 tax assessment, citing inadequate opportunity for defense and procedural violations. Details on the case and court ruling.
Shubham Thakral Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that only three days’ time was granted to the Petitioner to respond as against the mandatory statutory period of at least seven days. He further states that though the annexure annexed with the notice granted the Petitioner eight days’ time to respond, […]
Karida Real Estates Private Limited vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Keeping in view the fact that the impugned order and notice have been issued without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, this Court sets aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the […]
