Court held that Covid-19 exclusion period applies to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. It confirmed that limitation under Sections 73 and 74 remains extended based on Supreme Court’s directions.
Madras High Court held that development charges paid to SIPCOT not being capital asset doesn’t qualify for the claim of depreciation. However, the same qualifies as revenue expense and assessee entitled to claim deduction @5% as SIPCOT would deduct 5% every year.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that the assessing officer failed to consider binding CBIC circulars clarifying valuation of corporate guarantees. The case was remanded for reconsideration. The ruling reinforces the requirement for authorities to adhere to departmental circulars.
The Madras High Court condoned delay in ITR filing, holding that refund claims must be allowed if genuine hardship is proven, despite procedural delays.
Citing statutory requirements and CBIC circulars, the Court held that Section 74 cannot be used mechanically without evidence of intent to evade tax, resulting in quashing of orders.
Reassessment proceedings initiated without obtaining prior approval from the appropriate “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General were invalid.
The Madras High Court held that a taxpayer’s delay in withdrawing an appeal should not disqualify them from waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A, where tax was fully paid before the cut-off date.
The Madras High Court upheld a reassessment order passed under Section 144 after the taxpayer failed to respond to Section 148 notices. The Court found no reason to interfere but permitted an appeal within 30 days.
The Court held that once ITAT upholds the appellate order and the assessee clears all dues, attachment of property must be lifted even if a departmental appeal is pending.
Madras High Court upheld ITAT’s finding that receipt of bonus shares does not constitute income under Sections 2(22)(b) and 56(2)(viia). Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
