ITAT Kolkata ruled a Section 263 revision invalid because the underlying Section 143(3) assessment was based on an improperly formatted Section 143(2) notice, violating CBDT instructions.
ITAT Kolkata quashed an assessment, finding the Section 143(2) notice invalid due to non-compliance with CBDT format instructions and issuance by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act holds priority over CGST dues, citing Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Supreme Court precedents.
Delhi High Court held that the used jewellery worn by the passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects in terms of the Baggage Rules, 2016. Accordingly, the same would be exempt from detention by the Customs Department.
NCLAT Chennai held that delay of 26 days in filing of the report under Section 106 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, by the Resolution Professional condoned as reasonable cause of non-submission of the repayment plan and relevant information by the Guarantor shown.
CIT(Appeals) failed to admit the additional evidences which went to the root of the matter for determining the issue of taxability of long term capital gains as was made by AO ignoring the submissions of assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded to AO for fresh assessment, with liberty to assessee to furnish evidence.
Delhi High Court provides interim relief, stating GST penalty under Section 122(1A) cannot be applied retrospectively for pre-2021 transactions.
ITAT Pune quashes assessment where AO shifted grounds without fresh notice u/s 148. Reinforces need for proper procedure in reassessments.
Gujarat High Court held that entire addition towards bogus purchases not justifiable accordingly, addition at the rate of 6% of the bogus purchases is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that default occurred on 25th March 2023 which is well beyond the outer limit of section 10A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which squarely brings the claim within the permissible scope of Section 7 of the IBC. Thus, admission of section 7 application justified.
