Where an AO had also failed to do what was required under the law at the time of passing Assessment Order and had passed an Assessment Order with such defects, such assessment orders could be rectified by the officer by exercising power under section 154.
Madras High Court held that even if AO of both searched person and other person is same, for completing Assessment proceedings and passing the Assessment order has to be calculated from the date on which the documents were handed over or deemed to have been handed over to the AO of the “other person”.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer is not required to declare the sale between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as invalid as the sale is void abinito. Thus, court directed petitioner to institute suit in a civil court to establish right over disputed property.
Supreme Court rejected the bail application of Shri Satyendar Kumar Jain and others involved in the case of money laundering as appellants have not complied with the twin mandatory conditions laid down in Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
In Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan Vs ACIT, Madras HC clarifies that failure to file returns under Sec 139(1) is essential for prosecution under Sec 276CC of the Income Tax Act.
In a case between Salem Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. and the Income Tax Officer, Madras High Court allows appeal, permitting waiver of 10% pre-deposit amid financial hardship.
Madras High Court quashes assessment order for availing lower Input Tax Credit than reflected in GSTR 2A, citing non-application of mind. Details of the judgment here.
Learn about the case of Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) at the Madras High Court, where an assessment order was challenged due to the issuance of ASMT-12.
Learn how Madras High Court ruled against denial of GST Input Tax Credit due to a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, citing a clerical error in GSTIN indication.
Madras High Court held that Tax Recovery Officer cannot declare sale made by the assessee in favour of 3rd party as void. It is the function of civil court to declare a transaction as null and void and the Tax Recovery Officer cannot exercise the said function.
