ITAT Pune held that compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 falls under Section 10(10B) as retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax. The Tribunal directed reassessment of tax liability and grant of refunds after verification.
Calcutta High Court held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) can be taxed only in the hands of a registered or beneficial shareholder. The Revenues appeal was dismissed following binding judicial precedents.
The Court held that the statutory appellate remedy had become available following the Tribunals constitution and appointments. Appeals filed by June 30, 2026, must be entertained without limitation objections.
GSTAT held that permissions relating to ticket pricing could not override the statutory requirement to pass on GST rate reduction benefits to consumers. The profiteering demand was sustained.
The Court held that a challenge to the validity of a GST circular cannot be relegated to the appellate authority under Section 107, as such authority lacks power to declare a circular ultra vires. The writ petition was remanded for consideration of the vires challenge.
The Tribunal found that the dispute could only be resolved through a detailed reconciliation of journal vouchers and tax returns. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification.
State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided cross-appeals filed by a public sector bank and the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11. The case involved a large number of recurring banking-taxation issues including pension provisions, depreciation on securities, bad debts, section 14A disallowance, taxation of […]
The Mumbai ITAT found that the assessment order was passed without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish complete details or avail a hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Madras High Court held that suspension of GST registration through the impugned GST REG-17 notice was unwarranted. While allowing cancellation proceedings to continue, the Court quashed the suspension portion of the notice and directed adherence to the Suguna Cut Piece Center guidelines.
The dispute concerned Rule 6 demands on electricity transferred outside the manufacturing unit. CESTAT held that proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit amounts to non-availment of credit, making the demand unsustainable. The appeals were allowed and the demands, interest, and penalties were set aside.
