Kerala High Court halted coercive tax recovery, ruling that since appeal hearing before NFAC was completed and orders were awaited, recovery action was premature. Court directed NFAC to dispose of appeal within two months, and recovery is stayed until that decision is issued.
Delhi High Court set aside the Section 148A(3) reassessment order against Vedanta, ruling that subsequent GST Department closure of the underlying ITC issue materially affects the basis of escapement of income. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision incorporating the GST clean chit on the same transaction.
Bombay High Court set aside the Section 148 notice, reiterating that only the Faceless Assessing Officer possesses the statutory power to issue it. The ruling was based on the binding precedent of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.
HC rules assessment under UPGST Act unsustainable if personal hearing is denied, even when written reply opportunity was provided to taxpayer.
Kerala High Court denied the Section 10(37) capital gains exemption for land with trees, ruling that mere existence of rubber or fruit trees is insufficient. Assessee must prove actual agricultural activity and income in the preceding two years. The Court directed the AO to re-examine the alternate Section 54F exemption claim on merits.
Supreme Court holds that ‘previous financial year’ must align with the Income Tax Act; rejects arbitrary tender rejection by Odisha authorities.
Calcutta High Court directed the CGST authorities to defer proceedings on a show-cause notice that clubbed four financial years. The petitioner argued that such bunching and lack of scrutiny under Section 61 violated due process.
ITAT Pune held that issue of taxability of ex-gratia payment to be decided based on identical judgement as decided by coordinate bench of Tribunal in Mahadev Vasant Dhangekar. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
Karnataka High Court held that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued and served without signature of the Assessing Officer is a foundational defect and the same cannot be ignored. Accordingly, assessment order passed thereon is invalid.
Gauhati High Court held that statement of tax determination under section 73(3) of the CGST Act does not substitute the proper SCN required under Section 73(1). Further, passing of an adverse order without opportunity of personal hearing is against principles of natural justice.
