Delhi High Court

NFAC Can't Sustain Invocation Of Penalty Proceedings Based On Their Own Failure To Lodge Claim Under IBC Within Time: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre

Case Title: Sunshine Capital Limited Versus DCIT

Bombay High Court

Filing Delayed Returns, Power To Condone Delay Is Conferred On CBDT To Ensure Substantial Justice; Bombay High Court

Case Title: Pankaj Kailash Agarwal verses ACIT

Explaining the scope of powers u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income tax Act, the Bombay High Court recently clarified that the legislature has conferred power on the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent no.3) to condone the delay to enable the authorities to do substantive justice to the parties by disposing the matter on merits.

“Certainly The High Court Should Not Scrutinise An Order Of The ITSC As An Appellate Court,” Says Bombay High Court

Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Versus Income Tax Settlement Commission

The Bombay High Court has held that interference with the orders of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) should be avoided, keeping in mind the legislative intent. The scope of interference is very narrow, and certainly the High Court should not scrutinize an order of the ITSC as an appellate court. Unsettling reasoned orders from the ITSC may erode the confidence of assessees. The larger picture has to be kept in mind.

Refund More Than 10% Of Tax As Determined On Regular Assessment, CEAT Entitled To Interest On Refund Of Rs. 5.24 Cr.: Bombay High Court

Case Title: Ceat Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax

The Bombay High Court has held that Ceat Limited is entitled to interest on a refund of Rs. 5.24 crore as the refund is more than 10% of tax as determined on regular assessment.

Madras High Court

Opportunity For Hearing Was Refused Due To Assessee's Failure To Click On Appropriate Button, Madras High Court Quashes Faceless Assessment Order

The Madras High Court has quashed the order as the opportunity for hearing was refused due to the assessee's failure to click on the appropriate button.

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court Quashes Demand Notice And Assessment Order In Absence Of Any Claim Not Forming Part Of Resolution Plan

The Gujarat High Court has quashed the demand notice and assessment order in the absence of any claim not forming part of the resolution plan (RP).

Allahabad High Court

S.132B(1)(i) Income Tax Act | Power Of Assessing Authority To Decide Application For Release Of Seized Assets Not Automatically Abated After 120 Days: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to decide the application for release of seized assets under Section 132B (1)(i) does not abate after a period of 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132-A was executed.

[Income Tax Act] Supreme Court Decision In UOI v. Ashish Agarwal Applicable To Parties Who Challenged Notice U/S 148: Allahabad High Court