The Court held that a vehicle registered in Puducherry but used in Kerala is liable for state motor vehicle tax, dismissing claims of permanent use outside Kerala.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) fails where the notice alleged inaccurate particulars but the levy was based on concealment.
The Court held that inordinate delay of 8–9 years in adjudicating show cause notices violates principles of fairness and cannot be allowed to prejudice the assessee.
The High Court affirmed the assessment by applying its earlier decision while directing payment of differential tax to enable statutory compliance.
The ITAT set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was dismissed without proper hearing or examination of the assessee’s case.
The case addressed whether recorded purchases of ₹4.55 crore could still be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal held that without evidence of off-book investments, section 69 has no application.
The High Court rejected a long-pending challenge, holding that DRI officers are competent to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act.
The High Court set aside the appellate order rejecting the petitioner’s delayed GST appeal, recognizing the death of the engaged Advocate and family circumstances as sufficient grounds for delay.
ITO Vs Srichand Mandhyan (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court considered a Special Leave Petition challenging an order passed by the Bombay High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the material on record, the Supreme Court found no valid ground to interfere with the High Court’s decision. Accordingly, the Special […]
Bombay HC held that reassessment notices issued with sanction under an incorrect statutory provision are invalid, leading to quashing of notices, assessments, and consequential demands.
