SEO Description: The Tribunal held that post–Finance Act 2025, eligible trusts must receive ten-year registration under Section 12AB. A five-year registration granted after the amendment was therefore held invalid.
CESTAT Kolkata held that in absence of any cogent and corroborative evidence, gold in question cannot be construed to be of foreign origin or smuggled in nature. Accordingly, god seized is not liable for confiscation under section 111(b) and 111(d) of the Customs Act. 1962. Accordingly, order is set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that long-term capital gains cannot be treated as bogus merely on market suspicion or SEBI alerts without concrete evidence of manipulation.
CESTAT Mumbai held that services rendered by Marriott Hotels India Private Limited to their group company [Marriott Hong Kong] qualifies as export of services and accordingly no service tax is leviable. Thus, order quashed and appeal allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that inadvertent omission of claiming advance tax does not bar interest under Section 244A. Authorities cannot withdraw interest through Section 154 rectification for such mistakes.
The issue was whether an appeal could be heard by an ITAT bench lacking territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer, leading to dismissal with liberty to refile before the correct bench.
Bombay High Court held that this court order doesn’t contain any ‘finding’ or ‘direction’ as contemplated by provisions of section 153(6) and consequently no order of assessment could be passed in view of bar of limitation in section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The judgment clarifies that expenses incurred solely for Indian branches may be allowed under Section 37(1). Only qualifying head office expenses face the Section 44C ceiling.
The High Court dismissed the appeal after holding that the Tribunal’s findings on intra-group services raised no substantial question of law.
Karnataka High Court held that provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked since the petitioner was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person. Accordingly, the proceedings quashed.
