Bain & Company Vs D/ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi arose from a final assessment order dated 18 December 2024 passed by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is a foreign company […]
The Delhi High Court held that continuing a lookout circular after the conclusion of tax proceedings and in the absence of any outstanding demand violated fundamental rights. The Court ruled that administrative delay in gathering foreign information cannot justify indefinite travel restrictions.
The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s ruling that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act provides a mandatory arbitration mechanism for disputes between banks or financial institutions involving unpaid dues.
The Gauhati High Court held that a summary issued in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the statutory requirement of a proper Show Cause Notice under Section 73. Proceedings initiated without such notice were held invalid.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that the show cause notice and tax determination were issued in the name of a deceased proprietor without notifying the legal representative.
The court held that passing an ex parte GST assessment without providing a personal hearing violated procedural fairness. The case was remanded for fresh consideration with a mandatory personal hearing.
The Madras High Court set aside GST assessment orders after finding that the taxpayer was not given an opportunity of personal hearing. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
The High Court quashed the GST registration cancellation order but directed restoration only after the taxpayer clears pending tax liabilities. The ruling emphasizes conditional relief despite procedural violations.
The High Court held that once concessional late fee under Section 47 is paid for delayed GSTR-9 filing, a separate general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed. The additional penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under Section 143(3) is void ab initio when the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. The absence of a valid jurisdictional notice vitiated the entire proceedings.
