The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued on 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14 exceeded the statutory ten-year limitation period. The reassessment notice was therefore quashed as time-barred.
The Delhi High Court held that the period granted to an assessee for filing a reply under Section 148A(b) must be excluded while calculating limitation under Section 149. Since the Assessing Officer acted within the permissible period, the reassessment proceedings were upheld.
The Court set aside the provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 after the petitioner agreed to furnish a ₹1.5 crore fixed deposit. It held that the revenue’s interests could be safeguarded through the deposit while allowing the petitioner to continue business operations.
The High Court held that an earlier CGST show cause notice involving overlapping entities could not be ignored. The State GST notice was directed to remain in abeyance pending adjudication by the CGST Authority.
The High Court held that the addition under Section 40(a)(i) could not survive because it was made contrary to the DRP’s binding directions. The assessment order was set aside to that extent.
The case concerned reopening of completed income tax assessments based on information received from DRI and Central Excise authorities. The Delhi High Court held that such information constituted tangible material sufficient to justify reassessment proceedings.
The Delhi High Court set aside DGFT’s communication placing an importer in the “Denied Entity List” after finding violation of natural justice and Section 8 of the FTDR Act. The Court held that such action cannot be taken without proper notice and opportunity of hearing.
The Delhi High Court quashed PRC orders after finding that the exporter’s claim regarding non-transmission of Advance Authorization data to ICEGATE was not properly examined. The Court held that the authorities failed to consider material facts and repeated representations.
Delhi High Court held that even if the father may not qualify as a Class-I heir under succession law, he can still fall within the broader definition of legal representative for tax proceedings.
The Court ruled that absence of quantified interest and penalty in a GST show cause notice does not by itself invalidate proceedings under the CGST Act. Taxpayers were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead.
