Official Liquidator Vs Kirloskar Institute (Karnataka High Court) The Karnataka High Court considered an appeal filed by the Official Liquidator of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. (the company in liquidation) challenging the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Company Court in Company Application No.826/2011 in Company Petition No.166/2001. The Company Court had dismissed the application filed by […]
The High Court permitted the taxpayer to file an appeal despite delay after noting that the assessment order was served through deemed service on the common portal. The appeal must be filed with a 25% deposit of the disputed tax.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated while scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) is still pending. Such parallel proceedings are without jurisdiction and render the entire reassessment order invalid.
The Gujarat High Court granted bail after observing that the accused’s role was mainly related to compliance activities and he did not appear to be a major participant in the alleged GST fraud.
The Tribunal ruled that unverified KOT data and handwritten loose sheets are insufficient to establish unaccounted sales. Additions based on assumptions and unsupported survey statements were deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that a sale made after creation of an equitable mortgage cannot defeat the bank’s security interest, leading to dismissal of the borrower’s challenge.
The Kerala High Court held that employees originally from the DoT and later absorbed into the PSU must be treated as retiring from Central Government service. As a result, tax deduction on leave encashment based on an executive instruction was set aside.
The Karnataka AAR held that the exemption for housing society contributions must be calculated on a monthly basis per member. The ruling clarified that the threshold cannot be aggregated annually even if billing is done quarterly or annually.
The Court held that a single show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot cover multiple financial years. Such consolidation violates the statutory limitation structure and prejudices the assessee’s rights.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that authorities cannot block input tax credit beyond the balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Rule 86A allows restriction only on credit actually available at the time of invocation.
