The High Court remitted the GST matter for fresh consideration after the taxpayer agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The Court also directed submission of a reply to the show cause notice within the prescribed period.
The Calcutta High Court held that refund adjustment against a disputed tax demand was unsustainable when both a stay application and appeal remained pending. The Court directed release of the refund with interest and barred coercive recovery until the stay application is decided.
The High Court questioned the Revenue’s refusal to grant credit for advance tax and TDS despite substantial amounts already lying with the Government. The matter was directed towards reconsideration through a fresh assessment.
The ITAT Jodhpur deleted the disallowance relating to delayed PF and ESI deposits, holding that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the EPFO’s relaxation measures had not been properly considered. The Tribunal emphasized a pragmatic approach in exceptional circumstances.
Bombay High Court quashed income tax reassessment proceedings after holding that the PAN was not transferred to the competent jurisdictional officer and the Section 148 notice was issued by an officer lacking authority.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision quashing the assessment after finding that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction. The Court held that such a defect is incurable and strikes at the root of the proceedings.
The Uttarakhand High Court held that scheduling a personal hearing before the expiry of the time granted for filing a reply violated principles of natural justice. The assessment order was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh proceedings.
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be sustained without evidence of prior intimation to the assessee. The appeal was allowed as the Revenue failed to produce proof of notice.
The Court held that although filing the audit report along with the return is directory, complete failure to furnish the report is fatal to the deduction claim. The ruling emphasizes that statutory benefits cannot be granted without substantive compliance.
The Supreme Court held that filing Form 3AA during assessment proceedings constituted sufficient compliance, even though it was not submitted with the return. The ruling clarifies that delayed filing before the final assessment order does not automatically defeat the claim.
