The Madras High Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter already examined by Central authorities and remanded the matter for overlap verification.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Court followed the Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer are invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
The Madras High Court held that reassessment proceedings must be conducted only under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The reassessment notice was quashed after the Court relied on an earlier Division Bench ruling.
The Madras High Court held that the option under Section 36(1)(vii-a) of the Income Tax Act belongs exclusively to the assessee and cannot be substituted by the Assessing Officer. The Court directed recomputation of taxable income after rejecting the Department’s restrictive interpretation.
Court upheld the validity of the Section 148 notice but set aside the assessment order after finding that notices were sent to an old email address, resulting in denial of adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Madras High Court held that objections regarding fraud, suppression, and penalty proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act should be raised before the appellate authority. The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction where statutory appeal remedies were available.
Madras High Court held that time-share membership fees could not be fully taxed in the year of receipt since the assessee had continuing obligations extending over several years. The Court approved spreading part of the income over the membership tenure.
The Madras High Court quashed prosecution under Sections 276CC and 278B after finding that the petitioner had resigned as director before the relevant assessment year. The Court relied on Form No.32 filed with the Registrar of Companies.
The Madras High Court refused to quash prosecution under Section 276C(2) after noting continued non-payment of admitted tax liability and prolonged default. The Court held that issues raised by the assessee should be decided during trial.
