The High Court clarified that completed assessments do not abate upon search proceedings because no assessment proceedings remain pending. However, the earlier assessment loses enforceability after a fresh Section 153A assessment is passed.
The Delhi High Court held that CBDT Circular dated 18.11.2024 clearly prescribed a maximum period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year for seeking condonation of delay. Since the application for AY 2020-21 was filed after 31.03.2024, the Court upheld its rejection as time-barred.
The Delhi High Court held that income tax returns and taxable income details are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court ruled that such information cannot be disclosed merely because it is sought in a matrimonial dispute.
The issue involved alleged failure to pass on input tax credit benefits. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh factual determination by the tribunal.
The issue concerned whether the tribunal acted beyond the High Court’s earlier remand directions. The Court granted interim protection and restrained coercive action pending further hearing.
The Court examined whether reassessment notice issued beyond limitation was valid. It held that notices issued after expiry of the six-year limit under the old regime are barred and liable to be set aside.
The court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that an effective appellate remedy was available under the GST law. It emphasized that factual disputes and corrigendum validity must be examined through statutory appeals, not writ jurisdiction.
The issue was whether compensation paid to flat buyers was capital or revenue expenditure. The Court held it to be revenue expenditure as it was incurred for business purposes and commercial expediency.
The Court held that compensation paid to buyers for surrendering rights was incurred for business purposes and not capital in nature. It emphasized commercial expediency as a key factor. The ruling clarifies treatment of such payments in real estate business.
The court set aside a GST demand order citing violation of natural justice as no hearing opportunity was given. However, relief was conditional on full deposit due to delay in approaching the court.
