SC clarified that Delhi’s mixed-use policy cannot be exploited for unrestricted business expansion. Only ground floors approved as shops can operate commercially; upper floors require prior conversion approval. Judgment safeguards planned urban development under MPD-2021.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that payments received by players for playing cricket are not taxable under Business Support Service, upholding the Commissioner’s decision that only promotional income, if any, could attract tax.
Bombay HC directed tax department to issue Form GST PMT-03 after denying a refund, ensuring taxpayer’s Electronic Credit Ledger is re-credited within 15 days. Court left the issue of interest open for departmental consideration.
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of a ₹63.84 lakh addition under Section 68, observing that the assessee had already declared the same transactions as sales in audited accounts. Citing CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., it held that taxing such income again would lead to double taxation. The order reinforces that genuine recorded transactions cannot be recharacterized as unexplained cash credits.
Delhi HC reviews CBDT’s decision to exclude Transfer Pricing (TP) cases from the extended ITR deadline, an unprecedented departure from past practice. The case addresses the arbitrary denial of relief to TP-only assessees, raising concerns over administrative fairness and compliance consistency.
India introduces GST 2.0 effective Sept 22, 2025, simplifying tax slabs to 5%, 18%, and 40%, merging cess, revising exemptions, and updating rates for goods, services, and renewable energy equipment
Hostile takeovers, an aggressive acquisition strategy, are rare but growing in India. Learn the concept, key successful cases, and the existing SEBI regulatory framework.
Delhi HC set aside Section 148A order against Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, ruling the AO failed to consider the detailed submission, violating natural justice principles.
ITAT Pune held that interest credited on fixed deposits in assessee’s name remains taxable, even if underlying development agreement was later cancelled, as assessee retained ownership of account and TDS was deducted under her PAN.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted the penalty under Section 270A(9) for an excess claim of deduction under Section 54F, ruling it was a computation error, not misreporting. The Tribunal held that since the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and the error didn’t involve fraud or suppression, the penalty couldn’t be sustained under the specific clauses of misreporting.
