Kerala High Court held that petitioner didnt filed any document for the change of his business place nor supported the claim that business was being run from the registered address. Accordingly, cancellation of GST registration upheld.
ITAT Hyderabad held that deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act is applicable to an undertaking developing and building housing projects. The same is not applicable to a partner in a joint venture/partnership firm.
ITAT Kolkata held that exercising revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act purely on facts which are verifiable from records of the assessee is not justifiable and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules on the treatment of cash receipts from sale of gold/gold ornaments in case of Abhishek Prakashchand Chhajed Vs ITO.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Hydraulic Study Department of Calcutta Port Trust were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 71/80-Cus dated 26.03.1981 and Notification No. 152/94-Cus dated 13.07.1994. Notification exempts goods which are imported by research institution from payment of customs duty.
ITAT Chennai held that the termination of the call option merely relinquishes the right of to buy shares, however, there is no element of non-compete obligation inherent in the agreement and hence provisions of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act cannot be triggered.
ITAT Raipur held that AO having jurisdiction over the case passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2). Accordingly, the matter quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction as notice u/s 143(2) was issued by non-jurisdictional AO.
Supreme Court held that ‘tinted glass sheets’ is liable to be tax as ‘goods or ware made of glass’ covered within entry no. 4 of notification no. 5784 dated 07.09.1981 and hence the same is taxable.
Dive into the Narayan Sharma vs. Commissioner of Customs case at CESTAT Chandigarh, involving the absolute confiscation of smuggled gold. Learn about the facts, statements, and documentary evidence leading to the decision.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that refund under rule 16 of Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 allowable on account of change in constitution of firm into a private limited company.
