In a pragmatic ruling, the Karnataka High Court has allowed B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy to use a portion of the revenue from his attached windmills to cover maintenance costs, ensuring the assets remain operational to maximize tax recovery for the Income Tax Department.
Delhi High Court rules that a tax refund cannot be blocked by system limitations, directing the tax department to issue a manual refund in a demerger case.
Bombay High Court confirms tax penalties cannot be imposed solely on additions made through ad hoc estimations, dismissing a revenue appeal against Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam has partly allowed the appeal of Vallabhai Patel Kottapalli, an agriculturist, by restricting the tax rate on an unexplained cash deposit to 30% in-stead of 60%.
Karnataka High Court has ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021 for AY 2015-16 are invalid, following a Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Mumbai has deleted a Rs. 2.5 crore tax addition, ruling that Section 68 of Income Tax Act cannot be applied to loan balances carried forward from a previous year. ITAT found reopening and subsequent tax demand to be unjustified, as transaction’s genuineness was already established in a past assessment.
The ITAT Mumbai has ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Education Trust, holding that payments to foreign institutions for educational activities in India, a community preference clause, and a broad range of related educational activities do not violate Sections 11 or 13 of the Income-tax Act.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of a church trust, holding that a 29-day procedural delay in filing Form 10B should not result in the denial of a tax exemption under Section 11. The tribunal emphasized that substantive law should prevail over procedural lapses, especially when the jurisdictional High Court has already condoned the delay.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam allowed a trust’s appeal, restoring its Section 11 exemption. The sale of property to a trustee at market value was not a violation of Section 13, as no undue benefit was conferred.
The Bombay High Court ruled on a hospital’s TDS obligations for consultant doctors and equipment maintenance contracts, upholding the professional status of doctors while remanding the AMC issue.
