Madras High Court set aside order passed in respect of excess claim of input tax credit, due to non-appearance on the part of petitioner, with the condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. Directed to grant opportunity of being heard on payment of required amount.
Telangana High Court held that nature of supply of works contract executed in two states is intra-state, accordingly, tax liability shall be discharged individually in each state to the extent of proportion of works executed.
The assessee is a souharda cooperative society duly registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 and is engaged mainly in the business of accepting deposits from members and lending credit facilities to its member.
It is the Petitioner’s grievance that despite the issue of classification having been settled in favour of the Petitioner, the Revenue Department is insisting on goods being released provisionally subject to Petitioner’s furnishing of bonds.
The petitioner has sought to raise an issue with regard to need of submission of TRAN-1 in those cases where details of CTD are submitted in TRAN-3. The argument in this regard cannot be accepted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards undisclosed receipts not sustainable since the amount stand reconciled. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal filed by the assessee allowed.
Madras High Court granted stay on payment of 10% of tax demand since the respondent/ department failed to furnish proof against alleged demand. Accordingly, order set aside and stay granted.
Delhi High Court held that in case of investment in two residential properties, exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act is available in respect of only one of the two residential properties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that notification dated 27 June 2022 issued by the Government of West Bengal is excessive, manifestly arbitrary and contravenes the provisions of the Constitution and the Rule of Law and also contrary to the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
The stand of the assessee was that it was not necessary that loss of one industrial undertaking should necessarily be adjusted against the profit of another eligible industrial undertaking.
