Levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C on income arising from an APA. Interest was deleted as APA income crystallises only on signing, making advance-tax estimation impossible.
The Tribunal reiterated that procedural delays in uploading Form 10B should not defeat substantive tax exemptions available to charitable trusts. Denial of Section 11 relief merely due to late filing was held to be unjustified where charitable activities were undisputed.
The Court held that failure to upload the prescribed form cannot defeat a tax benefit when the option was clearly exercised in the return. Procedural lapses were directed to be regularised under Section 119(2)(b).
The court held that technical difficulties justified condonation of delay in filing the prescribed form for concessional tax. Procedural lapses could not override a valid claim made in the return.
DRAT Allahabad held that initiation of proceeding under SARFAESI Act for the same debt due after rejection of claim under Co-operative Societies Act is not justifiable. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.
The Authority held that LED drivers fall under CTH 8504 40 90 since their essential role is electrical energy conversion and regulation, aligning with static converters rather than lighting parts.
The authority rejected the argument that interlocking wall panels are structural building components. It ruled that decorative PVC panels lack load-bearing function and remain classifiable as sheets under heading 3921.
The dispute involved taxing unexplained increases in partners capital in the firms assessment. The Tribunal affirmed that such additions, if any, can only be examined in the hands of partners and not the partnership firm.
CESTAT Chennai held that Actuator Assy. Clutch and Tube Connector Assy. Clutch being accessory of clutch and gear shifting mechanism are rightly classifiable under the residual entry of 8708 9900 and not under 8708 9300. Accordingly, appeal of department rejected.
The case addressed whether exemption could be disallowed through prima facie adjustment under section 143(1). The Tribunal held such denial impermissible and ordered fresh consideration.
