The case examined reopening based on a prior disallowance under Section 80IB(10). The Court found that the disallowance had already been reversed by appellate authorities. Therefore, reopening based on the same ground was held invalid.
The Court held that serving notices at an outdated address violates natural justice. The proceedings were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Court examined whether reassessment based on search could extend beyond statutory timelines. It held that the notice for AY 2015–16 was issued beyond the permissible ten-year period. The ruling confirms that limitation provisions must be strictly followed.
The case involved reassessment triggered by a search conducted in 2022. The Court ruled that reopening beyond the 10-year statutory limit is not permissible.
The Court held that cash cannot be seized under GST provisions as it is excluded from the definition of “goods” and was not shown to be relevant to any proceedings. It directed immediate return of the seized amount, emphasizing limits on seizure powers.
The court held that reopening of assessment was invalid since the deduction issue was already settled in favour of the assessee. It ruled that reassessment cannot be based on an issue covered by binding precedent.
The court held that rejecting an appeal solely due to non-appearance is improper. Authorities must consider written submissions and pass a reasoned order. The ruling reinforces fair adjudication principles.
The Court ruled that the reassessment notice was invalid as it exceeded the statutory 10-year limit under Section 153A. It clarified that the search year must be included in computing the extended limitation period.
The High Court held that once a resolution plan under IBC extinguishes prior tax liabilities, reassessment cannot be initiated. The notice under Section 148 was set aside. The ruling confirms that extinguished claims cannot be revived through reassessment.
The case involved detention of goods where the taxpayer cited vehicle breakdown as the cause of delay. The court quashed the order for non-consideration of the reply and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
