Vihaan Networks Limited Vs The State of Bihar (Patna High Court) The present writ application has been filed seeking quashing of a notice bearing Process No. 336 dated 25.01.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Special Circle, Patna, asking the petitioner to deposit outstanding amount of Rs. 97,24,149/- against the State Goods and […]
ITAT Delhi held that revision of assessment order unjustifiable as the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Pune held that order u/s 119 dated 27.09.2019 extending due date to 31.10.2019 in respect of cases covered under Explanation 2(a) to section 139(1) applies to HUF too. Accordingly, as return by HUF filed within extended time limit, deduction u/s 80IA(7) of Income Tax Act allowable.
Delhi High Court held that reasons provided for withdrawal of export shipments vis-à-vis letter requesting permission for withdrawal of shipments doesn’t co-relate. Further, letter for withdrawal of impugned shipments not produced before adjudicating authority. letter for withdrawal of impugned shipments rejected.
ITAT Hyderabad held that there is delay of 3047 days in filing of an appeal and reasons stated for condonation are not proper and casual in nature and accordingly doesn’t come under reasonable cause. Hence, appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.
Delhi High Court held that for exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, twin conditions i.e. order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue needs to be satisfied. PCIT order not satisfying the same needs to be quashed.
ITAT Jaipur held that where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non-maintenance of books of account u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act. However, in such circumstances imposing penalty u/s. 271B for not getting books of accounts audited is not justifiable.
Madras High Court held that impugned assessment order passed without granting time despite of specific request from the petitioner is liable to be quashed and remanded back as against the principles of natural justice.
Uttarakhand High Court directed petitioner to file an application for revocation under Section 30 of the GST Act in terms of Rule 23 of the GST Rules despite being time-barred post payment of all the pending dues.
Madras High Court held that as the personal hearing has not been afforded, it is clear that principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondent. Hence, the impugned assessment orders is quashed and the matters will have to be remanded back for fresh consideration.
