The Delhi High Court set aside the entire reassessment process against Siam Stock Holdings Ltd. after finding that all official notices were sent to a former employee’s email address, violating principles of natural justice and rendering the proceedings invalid.
Bombay High Court confirms tax penalties cannot be imposed solely on additions made through ad hoc estimations, dismissing a revenue appeal against Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Mumbai has deleted a Rs. 2.5 crore tax addition, ruling that Section 68 of Income Tax Act cannot be applied to loan balances carried forward from a previous year. ITAT found reopening and subsequent tax demand to be unjustified, as transaction’s genuineness was already established in a past assessment.
The ITAT Mumbai has ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Education Trust, holding that payments to foreign institutions for educational activities in India, a community preference clause, and a broad range of related educational activities do not violate Sections 11 or 13 of the Income-tax Act.
The ITAT quashed a reassessment and deleted ₹13 crore in additions, ruling that the initial notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was time-barred.
The ITAT Kolkata has ruled that an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be made on share capital received from group companies when the assessee provides comprehensive documentary evidence, even if the directors of the investing companies do not appear in person.
PCIT Vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court in PCIT vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. examined the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of alleged bogus purchases claimed by the assessee. The appeal arose from an order dated 31 July 2020 […]
Court directed the State GST authorities to first decide on the preliminary objection of jurisdiction before proceeding under Section 74 and 122 of the UPGST Act, 2017, ensuring fair opportunity for the taxpayer.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Usha Wire Netting, upholding proceedings under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
Court ruled that a technical error in e-way bill vehicle number does not indicate tax evasion. Goods matched invoice details, and firm is entitled to a refund of deposited penalty.
