Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The ITAT has directed the authority to reconsider an education trust's registration application under clause 12A(1)(ac)(iii), emphasizing that bona fide errors in forms should not lead to automatic denial of registration.
The Calcutta High Court quashed S.148 reassessment notices, ruling them invalid due to being issued beyond the statutory limitation period.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that reassessment notices served after the limitation period are invalid, setting a precedent for timely compliance in tax assessments.
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Income Tax Department, ruling that they failed to substantiate claims under the exceptional category to bypass a low tax effect limit.
The Delhi High Court mandated that the Income Tax Department pay interest on the maturity value of KVPs and IVPs retained unlawfully from December 2003 to January 2005. The court criticized the department for its 'stubborn attitude' in this matter.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that all reassessment proceedings post-September 1, 2024, must adhere to the amended provisions of Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. This decision reaffirms a Supreme Court verdict, establishing the retrospective application of the new limitation period.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that a notice under Section 148 cannot be considered timely merely due to an earlier date if served beyond the limitation period.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed ongoing IGST refund proceedings, determining that the omission of Rule 96(10) renders the basis for show-cause notices invalid. This decision addresses the legal implications of procedural lapses in tax assessments.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam quashed a Section 148 notice for reassessment initiated beyond the six-year limitation, affirming statute limitations in tax proceedings.
The Madras High Court ruled that an unregistered Joint Venture Agreement without actual transfer of possession does not trigger capital gains tax, providing clarity on tax liabilities in such transactions.
The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal ruled that purchasing flats under third-party names using one's own funds constitutes a benami transaction. This interpretation relates to Section 2(9)(A) of the amended Benami Act.
The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal ruled that routing demonetized cash through third-party accounts constitutes a benami transaction. This ruling clarifies that cash is considered property under the PBPT Act.