The dispute arose from GST registration cancellation under Section 29(2)(b). The ruling allowed restoration once statutory dues were paid and returns permitted to be filed.
The dispute concerned whether the limitation period under Section 153C should be counted from the search date or from the date seized documents were handed over. The Court held that the handover date governs, excluding earlier assessment years from reassessment.
The court closed the writ after the State clarified that recovery proceedings were initiated only against the assessee husband. The petitioner was granted liberty to re-approach the court if her property is targeted.
The issue was whether interest earned from a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that such interest is deductible, as a co-operative bank is itself a co-operative society.
The Tribunal held that failure to return a seized laptop and documents used for defence vitiated the adjudication and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Calcutta High Court held that the right of redemption retained with the borrower under section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act till the Sale is confirmed and sale certificate is issued. Accordingly, revisional applicable is liable to be set aside.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that there is no illegality or irregularity in sanctioning loans on the same day since no rule prohibited such sanction. The prosecution has not established any dishonest intention on the part of the Branch Manager at the time of sanctioning the loan.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to file of AO for exercising the computation of disallowance u/s 14A.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to formally intimate amalgamation sustained the assessment, applying Mahagun Realtors, while striking down mechanical expense disallowances.
Delhi High Court held that summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act], is issued for gathering information and providing an opportunity to produce documents, it cannot be considered to be initiation of proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, writ dismissed as premature.
