Telangana High Court held that income earned from production of hybrid seeds under supervision of company is in the nature of agricultural activity and income earned from such activity is exempt under section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Gujarat High Court held that claim of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be bogus on the basis of presumption in absence of any corroborative evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held that since nature of expense i.e. purchase and source of expense not doubted and only genuineness of expense is doubted, the disallowance has to be made under section 37 of the Income Tax Act and not under section 69C. Accordingly, order of PCIT set aside.
Deduction under Section 36(1)(va) was allowable for a 16-day delay in depositing Employees’ Provident Fund by the assessee as delay was attributable due to the lockdown consequent upon the COVID-19 pandemic.
Exporters claiming GST refund after payment must file Form RFD-01 within two years of export. The guide covers documentation, timelines (7 days for provisional, 60 days for final), and common rejection reasons.
The GST Act mandates strict timelines for issuing show cause notices and assessment orders. SCN under Section 73 or 74 must follow prescribed periods to be valid.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act justifiable since the money trail establishes circulation of assessee’s own unaccounted funds through shell company. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed and order of ITAT set aside.
The government has kept interest rates on PPF, NSC, SCSS, Sukanya Samriddhi, and other small savings schemes unchanged for Q3 FY 2025–26. Investors will continue to earn the same returns as the previous quarter.
NCLAT Delhi held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [IBC] filed by the security Trustee is duly admissible since application was filed after obtaining valid authorisation from the lender. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai held that burden of showing that the goods are marketable is on department. Since department has not discharged its burden of showing that the goods i.e. sugar invert syrup is marketable no excise duty can be levied. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
