The court held that reopening beyond the permissible period was invalid where full disclosures were made and no new material emerged. Reassessment based solely on existing records was ruled time-barred.
Madras High Court held that Settlement Commission doesn’t possess power to change the head of income and convert the undisclosed portion of income into income u/s. 699B. Further, Settlement application is bound to be rejected once Settlement Commission arrives at the conclusion that full and true disclosure is not done.
Madras High Court held that JDA executed in 1994, however, sale/ transfer of capital asset was taken place only in March 1999 when the sale deed was executed. Accordingly, capital gain was rightly offered for AYs 1999-2000 and hence exemption u/s. 54 rightly claimed.
Madras High Court held that compounding charges payable by petitioner as per revised Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 is unsustainable since on the date of writ order i.e. 13.04.2022, the revised guidelines was not in force. Accordingly, writ petition deserved to be allowed.
Madras High Court held that in terms of provisions of section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 no action shall be taken against the property of the corporate debtor in relation to an offence committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP.
Madras High Court held that grant-in-aid/ subsidy received from the Government under a rehabilitation scheme is capital receipt and cannot be treated as revenue receipt. Accordingly, question of law is answered in favour of appellant.
The issue concerned non-implementation of a customs order allowing conversion of shipping bills to Drawback plus RoSCTL. The court directed the exporter to file a representation and ordered authorities to decide it within a fixed timeline.
The Court ruled that a 67-day delay in filing GST appeal deserved condonation as the taxpayer was pursuing statutory remedies. The appellate authority was directed to hear the appeal on merits.
The issue was whether CBIC notifications could extend limitation for orders under Section 73. The Court held the notifications illegal and directed fresh adjudication after treating prior orders as show cause notices.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued after excluding periods mandated by Supreme Court rulings were time-barred, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid
