Central Information Commission held that CPIO (Center Public Information Officer) can genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided. Accordingly, penal action cannot be initiated against CPIO without any malafide intention for refraining to provide information.
ITAT Chennai held that the sale proceeds from the sale of agricultural land cannot be treated as business asset proceeds as the revenue records clearly treats the land as agricultural land and agricultural activities were duly carried out on it.
Most of my judgements are getting sufficient views. Surely sometimes the analysis may turn out to be not satisfying However addressing the same with a tag that allocation of judgement will be stopped doesnt sound professional
CESTAT Hyderabad held that imparting of coaching for competitive examinations such as IIT-JEE, AIEEE etc is a taxable service in terms of Section 65(26) of Finance Act 1994.
Gujarat High Court directed direct pre-deposit amount to be quantified @ 15% of the tax demand raised by the respondent rather than 15% of the total amount fixed by the Assessing Officer.
Karnataka High Court held that cancellation of contract by State just before delivery of final product is violation of contract and accordingly writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a State or its instrumentality for the same is maintainable.
PCIT Vs Sriram Chita Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Karnataka High Court held that bid loss claimed by the assessee cannot be disallowed merely because a different treatment was given in the books of accounts. Entries in the books of accounts are not determinative or conclusive and the matter is to be examined on the […]
Madras High Court held that as petition already filed against the respondent, an interim protection is granted in favour of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner deposits 30% of the demand amount.
Held that the land earmarked for public utility purpose in terms of municipal regulations while forming residential lay out, cannot be brought to tax either u/s.47(iii) of the Income Tax Act or u/s.45(2) of the Income Tax Act
Bombay High Court held that once SVLDRS-2 issued and follow up action taken by the department, authorities cannot renege on the same when rejection of SVLDRS-1 not communicated to the applicant.
