The ITAT held that exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was available from AY 2018-19 because an earlier coordinate bench had already directed grant of approval. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial discipline required adherence to its previous ruling.
The Tribunal observed that CBDT instructions prohibit the AO from examining issues beyond the specific reason for limited scrutiny without proper approval. Additions relating to non-demonetisation cash deposits were therefore restricted.
Bangalore ITAT held that once ownership of agricultural land and cultivation activities are accepted, reasonable agricultural income cannot be rejected altogether. The Tribunal allowed relief for income from rubber plantation activities.
Telangana High Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a Section 73 GST order due to delay in approaching the Court. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal with a delay condonation application.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition after permitting the taxpayer to seek rectification under Section 161 of the GST Act. The authority was directed to decide the rectification application after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The High Court held that disputes regarding applicable VAT rate and product processing involved factual questions unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition after permitting the taxpayer to seek rectification under Section 161 of the GST Act. The Court directed the authority to decide the rectification application after granting a hearing.
The High Court refused to examine the merits of the GST assessment challenge due to delay in approaching the Court. The petitioner was instead granted liberty to file a statutory appeal with a delay condonation request.
The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a service tax order due to an inordinate delay of nearly four years. The Court held that the petitioner could still pursue any statutory remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994.
Bangalore ITAT held that unsigned loose sheets, scribblings, and rough jottings without corroborative evidence cannot form the sole basis for tax additions. The Tribunal deleted the protective additions linked to alleged capitation fee receipts.
