Review the details and consequences of the ITAT Ahmedabad’s ruling in Jetalpur Seva Sahkari Mandali Limited vs DCIT that income from commercial activity cannot be claimed as a deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.
Explore ITAT Chennai’s recent ruling in MRS Jewellery Vs DCIT, where they partly upheld the AO’s assessment of excess stock, creating a significant impact on the taxation of jewellery businesses.
Comprehensive analysis of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in favor of Jindal Drugs Ltd., discussing the precedent-setting case related to the advance authorization scheme and customs duties.
The tribunal examined previous precedents such as The Vainganga Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO, and found the deduction on interest income received from nominal members has been allowed in these cases. Furthermore, the tribunal took into account that the Kerala Act and Maharashtra Act consider ‘Nominal Members’ within the ambit of ‘Members’, thereby making such interest income eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
In a tax dispute involving Metro Engineers, the CESTAT Ahmedabad has ordered a remand for reevaluation of service tax demands. The case highlights issues of differential service tax on various services and the potential misuse of penalty provisions.
In a tax dispute with Baroda Rayon Corporation, the CESTAT Ahmedabad has ordered a fresh review due to the legal status of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This case raises critical questions regarding the interpretation and application of taxation laws.
In a significant ruling, ITAT Ahmedabad deemed an assessment under Sec 147 of the Income Tax Act, based solely on cash deposit information, as invalid in the case of DineshkumarDalsangbhai Chaudhary Kankavati Society Vs ITO.
The ITAT Delhi ruling in Arya Samaj Safdarjung Enclave Vs CIT sheds light on the reapplication process for 12A(1)(ac) registration erroneously submitted, encouraging a fresh approach to tax registration for non-profits.
CESTAT Ahmedabad set a precedent in Hussain Sheth Ispat Vs Commissioner of Customs, ruling that Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) is not relevant to the assessable value of goods, nullifying the differential duty demand.
A critical review of the case between Graphite India Limited and the Commissioner of Customs, with an emphasis on the significance of adhering to Project Import regulations and the implications of not doing so.
