ITAT Pune held that exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act entirely allowed as entire amount re-invested by the assessee and name of the son taken only as a proforma purchaser.
Madras High Court held that lease rent received from letting out property in industrial park is chargeable to tax under the head ‘Income from Business’ and not under the head ‘Income from house property’.
ITAT Delhi held that the onus is always on the assessee to substantiate with evidence to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the identity and credit worthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Matter restored to verify transaction for addition u/s. 68.
ITAT Bangalore held that confirmation not containing PAN cannot be reason for addition as the confirmations were available with the AO and if he had any doubt regarding he could have again verified with the creditors. Addition in respect of creditors deleted.
ITAT Bangalore held that filing of form 10B is only directory and the same is not mandatory. Hence denial of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act for delay in filing of form 10B unjustified.
CESTAT Mumbai held that appellants Customs Broker (CB) was not handling the export consignment hence it cannot be said that they had violated Regulation 10(d) and 10(n). Thus, revocation of license unjustified.
ITAT Bangalore held that delay in filing of an appeal due to election code of conduct and ill health of staff is sufficient cause and accordingly condonation of 25 days in filing of an appeal granted.
Madras High Court directed provisional release of Second-hand Highly Specialized Equipment – Digital Multifunction Print, Copying & Scanning Machines imported prior to notification no. 13/2024-2025 on deposit of enhanced duty amount.
Madras High Court held that the entry tax on the goods imported from the other States cannot be more than the sales tax/VAT levied on the goods manufactured within the State. Thus, difference between entry tax paid and local sales tax leviable should be refunded back.
The Commissioner (Appeals), however, proceed to imagine grounds for enhancement of the value and dealt with them. This exercise was really not required to be undertaken by the Commissioner (Appeals).
