Mumbai ITAT held that income from house property can be assessed only in the hands of an owner or deemed owner under the Income-tax Act. Since ownership of the land and building remained with MSRTC, lease receipts could not be taxed under the house property head.
The Tribunal deleted a ₹96.23 crore disallowance after finding that the liabilities crystallised during the relevant assessment year. It ruled that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the liabilities had arisen and become ascertainable in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice must clearly state the specific limb of Section 270A being invoked. Absence of such specification was held fatal to the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that for a guarantee payable on demand, limitation begins from the date the guarantee is invoked and not from the NPA date. Since the guarantee was invoked in 2025, the Section 7 petition was held to be within limitation.
CESTAT Bangalore held that excavation, extraction, grading, and sorting of iron ore are mining-related activities taxable only under Mining Services from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal ruled that such activities could not be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service for the earlier period.
CESTAT Delhi held that proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to inputs and input services used for generating exempted electricity is sufficient compliance with Rule 6(3)(i). The Tribunal therefore set aside the demand and penalty.
The ITAT Jaipur held that deduction under Section 54F cannot be denied merely due to delay in completing construction when the assessee had substantially constructed a habitable residential house within the prescribed period. The Tribunal directed deletion of the addition.
Resident taxpayers holding foreign assets or financial interests may be required to file returns and disclose such assets regardless of income levels. Failure to comply can lead to regulatory consequences.
The Authority found that a pre-selected donation mechanism added charges unless consumers actively opted out, impairing informed choice and constituting an unfair trade practice.
CCPA held that a subscription renewal interface using the phrase Accept Risk amounted to multiple prohibited dark patterns, including confirm shaming and forced action. A penalty was imposed despite subsequent modifications to the interface.
