Madras High Court held that reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years is sustainable in law since assessee has failed to set out truly and fully all the material facts.
The court held that valid registration under income-tax law is a relevant factor under FCRA and cannot be ignored. Failure to consider it violated Section 52, which makes FCRA supplementary to other laws.
Madras High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of certain statement without considering documentary evidence is not justifiable. Accordingly, writ of revenue is dismissed.
The court addressed seizure of imported textiles alleged to be misclassified and held that goods need not be retained during adjudication. Re-export was permitted on execution of a bond and furnishing of a bank guarantee, safeguarding recovery of differential duty.
The court examined whether a third party could seek impleadment in an ongoing competition investigation. It directed the regulator to decide the application swiftly, noting that CCI orders have binding, in rem effect on the entire industry.
The issue was whether a non-public servant spouse could be discharged at the threshold in a disproportionate assets case. The court held that properties in the wife’s name and joint holdings raised triable issues of abetment.
The dispute concerned rejection of a request to amend a Bill of Entry due to an incorrect invoice number. The court directed fresh consideration after submission of contemporaneous documents, without ruling on merits.
The High Court held that once belated ITC stands retrospectively regularised by statute, recovery of interest on the same basis cannot continue. The garnishee proceedings were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
The court examined whether reassessment for one year could be based on information from another year. It held that absence of foundational facts for the relevant year invalidates the notice.
The High Court declined to interfere with a GST show cause notice, holding that the challenge was premature. The assessee was directed to pursue adjudication and raise all legal submissions.
