The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is inapplicable to additional income surrendered during a survey operation that took place before the provision was amended to prescribe the enhanced rate.
Orders blocking GST input tax credit under Rule 86-A were set aside because the petitioner filed a reply within the timeline, but the department issued restrictive orders prematurely without hearing the petitioner.
A school challenged the MCD’s tax calculation under the SUNIYO Amnesty Scheme. The Delhi High Court, citing an SC restraint on similar interim orders, rejected the plea for a conditional deposit, reinforcing the policy-based nature of tax amnesty offers.
The Madras High Court set aside an assessment order against Gayathri Builder, which failed to respond to a GST Show Cause Notice. The court quashed the order and remitted the case back for fresh adjudication, contingent on the builder depositing 25/% of the disputed tax and filing a complete reply within 30 days.
NCLT Ahmedabad initiated CIRP against Synergy Food and Agro Processors Pvt. Ltd. after finding a default of over Rs. 1 crore on undisputed operational debt. An IRP was appointed and moratorium imposed under IBC Sections 9 and 14.
Bombay High Court held that directors cannot escape personal criminal liability for dishonoured cheques even if the company is under insolvency proceedings.
Tribunal admits CIRP against Bafna Motors Pvt. Ltd., ruling that post-10A period defaults exceeding the statutory threshold merit insolvency proceedings, with final claim verification to be done by IRP.
Bombay High Court ruled that GST returns are protected under Section 158 of GST Act and cannot be disclosed under RTI, emphasizing mandatory third-party notice under Section 11.
The ruling reinforces that Section 80P(4) bars co-operative societies from claiming deductions on income from co-operative banks, even if registered under the Co-operative Societies Act.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) after an ex-parte order, emphasizing need for assessee’s opportunity to be heard in a case involving protective additions under Section 68.
