The petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act, dealing with milk and milk products. As part of its business, the petitioner processes and sells, flavoured milk, to customers within and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Madras High Court held that period of limitation for issuing notice under section 153C of the Income Tax Act to person other than searched person shall be date of receiving books of accounts or documents seized by AO having jurisdiction over such other person.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 149(1)(a) and (b) of the Income Tax Act is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed and proceedings set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that claim of gratuity with interest was fully included within the meaning of operational debt under section 5(21) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] and accordingly, application under Section 9 of IBC was fully maintainable.
ITAT Chennai held that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act on mere change of opinion without satisfying necessary ingredients for initiating reassessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, reassessment set aside.
By returning the loan, the assessee has only utilised the loan for the purpose of business and repaid the same. Merely because some operator has managed the affairs and all the transactions cannot be labelled as non-genuine.
Gujarat High Court held that there is no mechanism of issuance of Document Identification Number [DIN] on any of the communication, notice, summons, orders issued by the State Tax Authorities. Accordingly, said contention of petitioner rejected and hence dismissed the petition.
The Petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further on the basis of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act of 1961 and drop the proceedings after considering the objection dated 21.02.2022. Petitioner also prayed for an interim stay of the impugned notice.
Addition made under Section 69A based only on statements and a pen drive that were never tested or corroborated was not justified as such evidence could not be treated as credible unless the taxpayer was confronted with it and given an opportunity to respond.
Nickel Hydroxide powder with additives like cobalt and graphite was classifiable as a miscellaneous chemical product under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3824 and not as an inorganic chemical under CTH 2825.
