Bombay High Court held that Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act empowers the Tribunal to rectify glaring error. Thus, earlier order which ignored binding precedents can be rectified. Writ disposed of accordingly.
NCLAT Delhi held that suspended directors, who invested about 5.5 crores and having 51% equity in Corporate Debtor, cannot claim that they were not aware about initiation of CIRP. Accordingly, observation of Adjudicating Authority that Suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor were not cooperating with the IRP/RP/Liquidator was justifiable.
Bombay High Court held that having regard to the provisions of Section 55(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal, acting as an Appellate Authority, certainly had powers to modify the order of part payment passed in First Appeal while hearing the Second Appeal.
CESTAT Kolkata held that penalty cannot be imposed merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions. Accordingly, imposition of penalty u/s. 112(a) of the Customs Act set aside in absence of corroborative evidence proving appellant’s role in mis-declaration/ over-invoicing.
Madras High Court held that petitioner failed to reply since GST show cause notice was only uploaded on the GST portal and petitioner was unaware about the same. Accordingly, impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to respondent for fresh consideration.
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act without mandatory Document Identification Number [DIN] is invalid, non-est and hence liable to be quashed. Accordingly, assessment order thereon also collapses.
Tribunal rules that Mtitanium Apartments cannot claim ₹1.10 crore brought forward business losses as the income tax return for AY 2023-24 was filed late, despite medical hardship.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Delhi has ruled that a disputed tax addition is no longer valid after the Assessing Officer (AO) himself rectified the initial assessment order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, granting the taxpayer full relief.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a Rs. 21.66 crore addition to a taxpayer’s income, ruling that the Assessing Officer illegally expanded the scope of a limited scrutiny. The Tribunal also held that the purchase and reconstruction of an old house qualifies for tax exemption under Section 54F.
ITAT Delhi has quashed an ex-parte assessment, ruling that the transfer of an assessee’s file between Assessing Officers requires a specific order under Section 127 of Income-tax Act.
