ITAT Kolkata held that an assessment under section 143(3) is invalid if the section 143(2) notice does not comply with CBDT prescribed formats. The ruling nullifies both the assessment and related revisionary proceedings.
ITAT held that Rule 8D cannot be applied automatically under section 14A; the AO must record satisfaction on the correctness of the assessee’s suomoto disallowance, quashing the incremental disallowance.
Delhi High Court held that provision of support service in India to foreign universities and institutions qualifies as export of services under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the same is not ‘intermediary’ in terms of rule 2(f) of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012.
The Calcutta High Court held that GST authorities cannot seize or seal cash under Section 67 unless it is shown to be useful or relevant to proceedings, and ordered de-sealing of ₹24 lakh cash.
The assessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional AO post-29.03.2022 violated the faceless assessment scheme, making the income addition void. The tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
Karnataka HC held that a notice under Section 148A(b) providing less than the statutory seven days is void. All consequential assessments, penalties, and demands were quashed as a result.
The Karnataka High Court held that a charitable trust should not be denied exemption merely for a delayed Form 10B filing caused by genuine oversight. A hyper-technical rejection under Section 119(2)(b) was set aside in favour of a justice-oriented approach.
The Tribunal held that holding and operating a foreign bank account without RBI approval is a continuing contravention under FEMA. Subsequent repatriation or tax disclosure does not wipe out liability, and penalties were upheld.
Court held that a retracted Section 132(4) statement cannot form the sole basis for block assessment when no incriminating material was found during search. The block assessment orders were struck down.
The Tribunal held that the SARFAESI notice constituted a valid invocation of the guarantee and admitted the insolvency process. It ruled that the arbitral award refreshed limitation and objections on maintainability could not stand.
