Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
Assessee challenged an income tax assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144. Assessee represented a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) who was Karta, Mr. M. Subramanian passed away on 15.01.2013.
ITAT Ahmedabad imposed cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee due to non-compliance and procedural delay. Accordingly, ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A).
Madras High Court held that it is settled law that no assessment or reassessment can be made on a dead person. Thus, order against the deceased assessee is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance against notice issued in DRC-01A, the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and petitioner will be granted opportunity of being heard on payment of the amount.
Supreme Court held that Rajasthan High Court not justified in dismissing the appeal by considering matter under section 10(20) since it was the case of section 11 and 12 of Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 is six year which expires on 31.03.2022. Accordingly, notice issued on 29.07.2022 u/s. 148 is barred by limitation.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance with notice issued under GST, the petitioner is required to deposit 25% of disputed tax and post deposit of amount, the petitioner will be granted an opportunity of being heard.
NCLT Delhi held that admissible of application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) not justified since invoices covered under section 10A has to be excluded and accordingly amount claimed will be less than threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore.
Despite late filing of Form 67, assessee deserved the credit for taxes paid in Nepal since the provisions of DTAA (in this case DTAA with Nepal) had an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act.
It was felt that the minute details of matching of accounts, working out the exact quantum of turnover from the bank accounts and matching of vouchers with expenses claimed could not be done by this Bench of ITAT.
