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.
The Delhi High Court held that an assessment order cannot be remanded to the AO without adjudicating the validity of the Section 144 order. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide jurisdiction first.
The issue was whether failure to deposit unutilised capital gains in CGAS before the due date defeats Section 54B relief. The ITAT held that where eligible agricultural land is purchased within time and cheques are issued with sufficient balance, CGAS non-deposit is only procedural. Full exemption was therefore allowed.
The High Court held that a GST demand cannot exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice, setting aside the order for violating Section 75(7) and principles of natural justice.
