The Madras High Court ruled that Section 54F of the Income Tax Act can cover multiple residential units purchased from capital gains, reversing the ITAT’s single-flat restriction.
Madras High Court held that assessee can raise additional ground of validity of reassessment proceedings in terms of rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Accordingly, ITAT justified in accepting the ground that reassessment was change of opinion.
Madras High Court permits a delayed appeal against GST penalty order, provided 25% of disputed tax and interest on belated payment are deposited, emphasizing conditional relief.
The Court directed issuance of a new PAN after a duplicate allotment caused the petitioner’s financial record to be linked to another person’s loan defaults.
Madras High Court held that order of attachment of immovable property is required to be lifted as recovery officer is bound to give effect to order of higher authority. Accordingly, since entire arrears is already paid as per order passed by ITAT.
The High Court held that a six-month delay in filing a statutory revision under the Customs Act cannot be condoned. The Court found no justification for the delay and refused to exercise writ jurisdiction.
he Court held that the challenged letter was only a preliminary query, not a show cause notice. The petitioner must reply, after which authorities may close the matter or issue a formal notice with proper legal provisions.
The Court held that once the assessee files a valid return, the assessment under Section 62 is automatically withdrawn. Even if the return is submitted late, the statutory consequence under Section 62(2) applies. The ruling confirms that the department may still verify liability and issue a fresh notice if short-payment exists.
The Madras High Court held that an investment company’s interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was invalid as it followed a cash system of accounting. The Tribunal’s deletion of the addition was upheld, confirming that matching principles are not applicable under cash-based accounting.
The Court held that a tax demand cannot be sustained solely on a fixed 2:1:3 input-output ratio and must be supported by evidence of suppressed outward supply.
