Unravel Pravinchandra A Shah Vs Union of India case where a notice issued under Section 148 of Income Tax Act to a deceased person was ruled invalid by Gujarat HC
Gujarat High Court held that rejection of refund claim of unutilized ITC used in making zero-rated supply of goods merely on the ground of technicality unjustified as all the substantive conditions are satisfied.
50 times higher assessment without considering request of petitioner for personal hearing through video conferencing – Gujarat HC quashed Order in case of Margita Infra
Gujarat High Court held that refund claim of inadvertently charged IGST @18% instead of concessional rate of 0.1% duly available as merely because by mistake, the duties are paid on the goods which are exempted from payment does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for the duty under the Act.
Read how Gujarat High Court upheld ITAT’s decision, confirming that only the profit element embedded in Bogus purchases would be added to assessee’s income.
Read the analysis and conclusion of the Swati Viren Karani Vs ITO case where the Gujarat High Court deemed section 148 notices issued between 1-4-2021 and 30-6-2021 as per Section 148A(b).
Gujarat High Court held that penalty not imposable as excess depreciation claimed was surrendered by the assessee without prior detection of the Revenue and such excess claim was made due to bonafide reasons.
Gujarat High Court held that misconduct charges against the auditor not sustained stating the Statute provides remedy of appeal is only available to a member of ICAI against the decision of the Board Discipline or Disciplinary Committee imposing any penalty. The same is not available to the complainant or informant.
In the case of Renuka Sugars Ltd vs State of Gujarat, Gujarat High Court examines validity of lodging a supplementary refund claim under ‘any other’ category for a balance refund amount due to an arithmetical error.
Gujarat High court held that reasons recorded while issuing notice u/s 148 was that capital gain on sale of property was not reflected in return and hence income has escaped assessment. However, factually, capital gain was already reflected in the return and hence it cannot be said that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence reopening unsustained.
