Madras High Court held that deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act not eligible in absence of any demonstrable evidence regarding any expense incurred towards eligible project to substantiate development of eligible project.
The Madras High Court set aside a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, holding it void under the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Court ruled that only the Faceless Assessment Officer has the authority to issue such notices. This decision reinforces the binding nature of the faceless reassessment mechanism post-notification.
The Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to dispose of a representation pending since 2014 within six weeks. The Court noted that the Department had already acknowledged the delay and must now act promptly. The ruling reinforces that prolonged inaction on taxpayer representations is unacceptable.
The Court stayed recovery proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) against the assessee’s bank accounts, noting that a stay application was already scheduled for hearing. Since the taxpayer had exercised his appellate and rectification rights, the Court found the Department’s coercive action premature. It ordered maintenance of status quo until the next hearing date. The judgment emphasizes fairness and procedural propriety in tax recovery.
The Court observed that the Income Tax Department acted without due verification in raising a demand on a deactivated PAN. Since the Department had already recognized the active PAN in earlier proceedings, the fresh demand appeared erroneous and procedurally invalid. Justice C. Saravanan granted an interim stay and sought production of the relevant assessment records. The case highlights the need for robust PAN verification before initiating recovery actions.
Madras High Court rules on GST notice service via email, clarifies that digital communication must ensure effective notice to uphold natural justice.
The Madras High Court ruled that a GST assessment uploaded after the taxpayer’s registration was cancelled is invalid, as the assessee loses access to the GST portal.
Madras HC: Delayed self-assessment tax payment is not ‘wilful evasion’ under IT Act S. 276C(2) if the tax is paid before prosecution. Mens rea is mandatory.
Madras High Court granted an interim stay on all recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against the reassessment order. The Court explicitly linked its decision and the case’s future to the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling in Hexaware Technologies, establishing a clear procedural precedent for similar reassessment writ petitions.
HC held that large cash payments exceeding Rs.20,000 may be exempt if properly substantiated under Rule 6DD and business needs; Tribunal’s earlier disallowance set aside.
