Category: High Courts
Date of initiation of penalty proceedings in assessment order is the relevant date u/s 275(1)(c) for limitation purpose. ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3618 (2022) (11) HC Important Case Laws relied upon by parties Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. JKD …
Faceless Assessing Officer can not extend time barring date in Income Tax Business Application without statutory order – High Court ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3598 (2022) (05) HC In a recent case Hon’ble High Court has held that the act of the Faceless Assessing Officer extending the Time …
High Court directs ICAI to frame a policy for disclosure by CAs at qualifying stage/annually of criminal cases or convictions. ABCAUS Case Law Citation ABCAUS 3569 (2022) (01) HC High Court has directed ICAI to frame a policy and a mechanism for disclosure by chartered accountants at the …
Reassessment notice issued under old section 148 after 31.03.2021 invalid as reassessment provisions are substituted by Finance Act, 1921 with effect from 01.04.2021. ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3565 (2021) (12) HC Important case law relied referred:Union of India & Ors. Vs. S. Srinivasan, (2012) 7 SCC 683Palak Khatuja …
Faceless Assessment order quashed as no password was sent in the link to join video conferencing for the hearing ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3563 (2021) (11) HC In the instant case, the assessee had wiled a Writ Petition to challenge the faceless assessment order passed under Section 143(3) …
Filling hypothetical income tax payment details in ITR to bypass erstwhile e-filing portal validation – Prosecution u/s 277 quashed by High Court ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3562 (2021) (11) HC Important case law relied referred:Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao vs. Naragani Govinda Sehararao and another Income Tax Officer …
ITAT can not dismiss appeal ex-parte without addressing merits of issues in appeal- Allahabad High Court ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3561 (2021) (11) HC Important case law relied referred:Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. vs. CWT 223 ITR 480CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & …
CPC can not adjust refund in excess of 20% for disputed outstanding demand. Order u/s 245 or order u/s 220(6) do not authorise recovery in excess of 20%. ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3542 (2021) (08) HC Important case law relied referred:Amrit Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab & …
Calcutta High Court stays section 194N for TDS on cash withdrawal from bank In the instant case, the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity and legality of Section 194N of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which mandates the deduction of tax at source at the rate of 2% …
Activity of running hostel by Dental college not a separate business activity and pre conditions u/s 11(4A) do not apply – High Court In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the ITAT holding that in the absence of separate books of accounts, the …