ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest on loans and advance to small advances on debit/ credit balances of suppliers and contractors are incidental to business hence taxable as business income and not as income from other sources.
Bombay High Court in the case of Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust held that anonymous donation received by religious and charitable trust is entitled to benefit of an exemption from tax under section 115BBC(2b) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that CIT has rightly held that assessment order was passed without making necessary inquiries and verification hence in terms of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 263, the assessment order is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Madras High Court held that rejection of input tax credit on the ground that claim has been lodged beyond period prescribed u/s. 16(4) of the GST Act needs to be re-visited in view of section 16(5) inserted vide section 118 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act untenable since AO didn’t record any satisfaction to the effect that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act are violated.
Karnataka High Court held that claims which are not a part of resolution plan stands extinguished, accordingly, no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan.
CESTAT Delhi sets aside the order on sole reason that show cause notice doesn’t even state the allegations in respect of violation of four regulations under CBLR 2013 by customs broker. Thus, order quashed as notice is absolutely vague.
According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 imported manufacturing machines without payment of central excise duties of Rs.10,14,099/- and custom duties of Rs.51,00,988/- for the manufacturing of export goods.
Rajasthan High Court held that share of the employee in the provident fund deducted by the employer, has to be deposited as per the due date fixed by the EPF Act and ESI Act concerned and not as per Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that suspension of GST registration alleging non-compliance with rule 86B of CGST Rules not justified as assessee deposited required amount. Thus, petition allowed and direction given for restoration of GST registration.
