Insights & Resources

This write-up analyses the Delhi High Court's ruling in Rohit Kumar v. ITO, which invalidated a reassessment under the Income-tax Act due to procedural non-compliance post-Finance Act, 2021. The judgment affirms the binding nature of Sections 148A and 151, reiterating that digital signature dates determine notice validity and reassessment thresholds must be adhered to strictly.

Introduction   In CGST v. Yogesh Gupta [i] , the Court of the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram (‘ Ld. Court ’) examined...

NCLT Mumbai dismisses CIRP application, citing a pre-existing dispute and the Section 10A COVID-19 moratorium under the IBC.

CBDT’s latest amendment prescribes conditions for VC Funds & IFSC Finance Companies under Sections 10(23FB) & 94B of the Income-Tax Act.

Delhi HC reinforces adherence to Delhi HC rules reassessment notices issued beyond statutory limitation invalid.

In a significant ruling under the Benami Act, the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal quashed a provisional attachment order where no sale deed was executed and ownership never transferred. The case reinforces that partial payment and mere intent to purchase do not amount to a benami transaction under s. 2(9)(A), absent legal title or possession.

NCLAT rules that the moratorium under Section 101 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is mandatory and cannot exceed 180 days.

Kerala High Court upholds State GST officers’ authority to issue SCNs under CGST Act, clarifying cross-empowerment provisions.

The Delhi High Court enforced strict procedural safeguards under the CGST Act, holding that seized goods cannot be retained beyond six months without prior notice and justification. The judgment in Kashish Optics Ltd. reaffirms the time-bound and rights-protective nature of s. 67(7), aligning it with due process principles and jurisprudence under the Customs Act.

Delhi HC affirms proportionality in GST penalties, ruling that minor e-way bill lapses shouldn’t attract severe fines under Section 129.

The SC explains the conditions for applying the exception of grave and sudden provocation under s. 300 of the IPC in homicide cases.

In Minal Shroff v. ITO, the ITAT quashed a reassessment under Section 147 for relying solely on third-party alerts, without any fresh inquiry or tangible material. This case reaffirms critical safeguards for taxpayers and clarifies that the ‘reason to believe’ must be the AO’s own, not borrowed.