The Kerala High Court held that issuing a single GST notice covering multiple assessment years is unsustainable as different limitation periods apply for each year, potentially prejudicing taxpayers.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the exemption of Muslim gifts from compulsory registration under Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the Law Commission of India for possible legislative changes.
The Supreme Court disposed of the petitions and allowed the parties to assist the High Court where challenges to CPCB guidelines on idol manufacture and immersion are pending.
The Court held that CPCB idol immersion guidelines are advisory and permitted artisans to manufacture PoP idols, while directing that immersion cannot take place without court permission.
The Court refused to mandate NAT testing for blood screening, stating that the issue involves policy decisions and financial implications that must be assessed by governments and domain experts.
ITAT Delhi held that payments made by an employees’ welfare society to members, including death claims and retirement benefits, must be set off against taxable interest income before computing taxable income.
The tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings for a period prior to the approval of an NCLT resolution plan cannot be sustained. It held that once the resolution plan is approved, tax demands relating to earlier periods cannot continue against the corporate debtor.
The Supreme Court refused to condone a delay of 262 days in filing the Special Leave Petition and found no merit for interference. The dismissal left intact the order quashing the reassessment notice under Section 148.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated without approval from the correct authority under Section 151 is invalid. Since the reassessment itself was void, the revision order under Section 263 could not survive.
The Supreme Court upheld the invalidation of an assessment order issued in the name of a company that had merged and ceased to exist. The Court held that proceedings must be initiated against the transferee company.
