ITAT Ahmedabad held that treating transaction of sale of land as business income without any base which indicates that the transaction would be an adventure in the nature of trade. Hence, AO rightly treated sale of land as capital gain.
Madhya Pradesh High Court the time period of 30 days stipulated in Section 128 is relaxable. Accordingly, review u/s 128 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS Scheme, 2019) allowable if reasons are assigned by the Revenue which do not fall foul of reasonableness clause under Article 14 of Constitution.
Allahabad High Court held that seizure memo could not be sustained in the eye of law as authorities below have not recorded any findings with regard to submission of the petitioner with regard to that there was break down of the vehicle and the driver fell ill in the matter of e-way bill expiry.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that milk cream is different from milk. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed and demand of tax @ 4% sustained.
Madras High Court held that two wheeler fan belts falls under entry 30 of Part-C of TNGST Act attracting 5% tax and tractor fan belts are specifically found mentioned under entry 27 of Part-B of TNGST Act attracting 3% tax. Hence, it is not right to invoke general entry 50 to the same.
Karnataka High Court held that BBMP demanded the property tax based on Accountant General report. However the same was not provided to the petitioner. Accordingly, non-provision of Accountant General report amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
ITAT Kolkata held that gross receipts cannot be taxed entirely, estimated expenditure incurred by the society for earning this income needs to be allowed even if the society is not registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on account of attributing income from offshore supplies to permanent establishment in India unjustified in case of loss.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of expenditure by invoking rectification provisions of section 154 of the Income Tax Act is unjustifiable as the same is not mistake apparent on record.
Supreme Court held that exemption from excise duty given to intravenous fluids is available to products manufactured for treatment of veterinary disease if products falls under the category of intravenous fluids.
