Amendment To Bring Additional Grounds U/S 34 Of A&C Act Is Maintainable If Objections Are Not Beyond Judicial Scrutiny Of Court: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing amendment petition filed u/s 34 of the A&C Act observed that the omission to plead a ground of challenge in the original Section 34 petition pertaining to non-adherence to the mandatory procedure of Section 29A would not oust the jurisdiction of the Section 34 Court to scrutinize the same. The Court held that...

[Income Tax Act] Reassessment Beyond 4 Years Requires Specific Non-Disclosure By Assessee, Not Mere Allegations: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that reassessment under Section 147 Income Tax Act beyond 4 years requires specific non-disclosure by assessee, not mere bald allegations. Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides for the reopening of assessment proceedings. This section gives discretion to the Assessing Officer (AO) to reopen the assessment proceedings when he/she has reason...

Assessing Authority Not Bound By Appellate Tribunal's Observations In De Novo Assessment: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has stated that the assessing authority is not bound by the appellate tribunal's observations in a De Novo assessment. Justices Anita Sumanth and N. Senthilkumar opined that while concluding the assessment de novo, the assessing authority is not bound by the observations made by the first appellate authority. In this case, the Commercial Taxes Department...

Income Tax | Serving SCN On Old Email After Updation Is Invalid, Despite Earlier Acknowledgement: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that reply to one SCN on old email cannot justify non-service of subsequent notice on updated email. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “one of the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was indeed served to the assessee in the old email ID, which was after updating the email ID. The assessee also submitted a response to the...

AD-I Banks Can Grant Extension For Export Drawback Claims; RBI's Direct Approval Not Mandatory: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that AD-I banks authorized by RBI can grant extension for export drawback claims, RBI's direct approval not mandatory. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the Master Circular published in this regard indicates that it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such...

J&K High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Of ₹1.37 Crore To Entrepreneur Whose Gulmarg Hotel's Lease Was Illegally Terminated By Govt

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld Rs. 1.37 crore in compensation to a woman entrepreneur whose hotel lease was wrongfully cancelled, stating that illegal termination of lease resulted in losses to the extent of Rs.1,37,57,009/.A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the Arbitral tribunal was justified in awarding the amount towards the financial loss suffered by the...

Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act Initiated Against Cancelled PAN Number

The Kerala High Court quashed Income Tax proceedings under Section 148 against co-operative society initiated on cancelled PAN. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the transactions pertain to the relevant assessment year were carried out based on the PAN card that was then in existence, which was later cancelled. By the time the proceedings of assessment were initiated by issuing...

Past Professional Relationship Creates Enough Bias To Terminate Arbitrator's Mandate U/S 14 Of A&C Act, Duration Is Immaterial: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that if any person had any professional or supervisory relationship with the party to the Arbitration, such person cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator as per Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule. It does not matter whether such a relationship existed over 17 years ago but the real test is whether such a relationship...

Occupancy Certificate Not Final For Plinth Area Determination: Kerala High Court Upholds Luxury Tax U/S 5A Of Kerala Building Tax Act

The Kerala High Court stated that occupancy certificate not final for plinth area determination under Section 6 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the issue where challenge raised by the assessee was against the assessment of building tax and luxury tax, by mainly placing reliance upon Occupancy Certificate. Section 5A Of Kerala Building Tax...

Proceedings U/S 148A Of Income Tax Act Unsustainable If Escaped Income Is Below ₹50 Lakhs & Notice Is Issued After 3 Years: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that proceedings under Section 148A of Income Tax Act not sustainable if escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs and notice issued after 3-years. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “when the order of the assessing authority is found to be without jurisdiction and hit by the period of limitation, it is not necessary to relegate the party concerned to...

Arbitration Can Be Initiated Over Termination Of Employee Contract Containing Both Dispute Resolution & Termination Clause : Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar while allowing an application for appointment of arbitrator has observed that where an employee has been terminated in terms of an employment contract which contains both Dispute Resolution clause and Termination clause, if it is not a case of termination simpliciter, then the dispute shall be referred to arbitration in terms of...

When Parties Cannot Agree Upon Rules Governing Arbitration, Independent Clause Conferring Exclusive Jurisdiction Prevails: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar, while hearing a section 11 petition, observed that Courts at Durgapur would have the exclusive jurisdiction over the arbitral proceeding vide Clause 46.2.4 of the GCC, as the parties could not agree upon the rules of arbitration governing the proceedings as provided under Clause 46.2.5. Factual Matrix: The Respondent No....