The case addresses the continued failure to release ITR utilities on time despite earlier court directions. The Court adjourned the matter after CBDT failed to file a required affidavit, highlighting ongoing compliance gaps.
High Court held that consideration received on transfer of self-generated trademarks before 1 April 2002 was not taxable as capital gains because no ascertainable cost of acquisition existed, making computation provisions unworkable.
The Court examined whether ITC can be denied when the supplier fails to deposit tax. It upheld the provision, ruling that ITC depends on actual tax payment to the Government. The key takeaway is that purchaser compliance alone is insufficient without supplier tax remittance.
The Court examined whether the matter required immediate intervention. It held that the issues deserved consideration and granted ad-interim relief. This ensures status quo until final adjudication.
The Court held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated solely on third-party data without independent evidence of income escapement. It ruled that such reopening amounts to suspicion and lacks the required “reason to believe.”
The court upheld ₹50,000 monthly maintenance after finding insufficient evidence of reduced income. It ruled that inability claims must be substantiated and cannot defeat maintenance obligations.
The issue involved stringent deposit conditions imposed while granting bail in cheque dishonour cases. The High Court held such conditions excessive and reduced the requirement to 20% of the cheque amount.
The issue was whether a vague notice could justify cancellation of GST registration. The Court held that lack of material particulars invalidates the notice and order, leading to restoration of registration.
The court examined whether delay in Form 10B filing could be condoned but found the authority rejected it on unrelated grounds. It held that such rejection beyond the scope of Section 119(2)(b) was invalid and remanded the matter.
The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny assessment. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
