Jammu Kashmir High Court held that licensing requirement under Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 read with rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Rules, 2017 applies to both manufacturer and dealers. Further, the licensing requirement doesn’t violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
ITAT Chennai ruled that an assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number violates CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and is invalid. Tribunal held that non-compliance with circular’s mandate cannot be cured by later communication of DIN. Orders lacking DIN are deemed never to have been issued.
Gujarat High Court held that PAN jurisdiction in ITBA [Income Tax Business Application] portal is of no consequence in absence of order passed under section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice and order thereof is liable to be quashed.
The appellate authority held that unexplained cash additions under Section 69A require evidence, not mere suspicion. Cash from property sale deposited after ten months was justified and deletion allowed.
ITAT ruled that reassessment under section 147 is valid even if based on an old PAN, as banking and TDS records may reflect its continued use. Ex parte assessment was remanded for proper reconciliation.
The Supreme Court held that revision under Section 263 requires both error and prejudice to revenue. In this case, depreciation claimed by a loss-making entity was tax-neutral, so revision was invalid.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that counter claims cannot be filed against co-defendants under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC. The ruling dismisses a misconceived and time-barred claim, restoring procedural discipline.
The Telangana High Court ruled that an assessment order passed ten years after an ITAT remand violated Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. It held that the order was barred by limitation and unsustainable in law. The Court directed refund of taxes with interest, subject to the outcome of the pending departmental appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that grants from the Maharashtra Government for road projects were capital in nature. Such promoter’s contributions cannot be taxed as business income.
Reassessment proceedings initiated without obtaining prior approval from the appropriate “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General were invalid.
