ITAT Indore held that stamp duty valuation cannot be adopted without considering Section 50C(2)/(3). The matter was remanded for DVO reference and fresh computation.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging rectification orders under Section 161, holding that the petitioner must pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking Article 226.
NCLAT held that where the Guarantee Deed capped total liability at ₹75 lakhs in aggregate, the ₹1 crore threshold under Section 4 of IBC was not met. The Section 7 insolvency application was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
Madras High Court directed provisional release of detained second-hand MFDs, following earlier orders in similar cases. Release is subject to conditions and final adjudication.
Madras High Court held that the Settlement Commission did not adequately scrutinize the detailed explanation of undisclosed income. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 245C.
The Tribunal held that the revised ₹25 lakh exemption limit for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) must be considered and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for recomputation. The decision emphasizes applying the enhanced limit even for earlier assessment years where judicial precedents support the claim.
The Gujarat AAR held that semen sorting services performed on bovine semen qualify as job work related to animal husbandry. As an intermediate production process under SAC 9986, the service is exempt from GST.
The Bombay High Court held that a separate cooperative society could not be registered for shops forming part of a single building already governed by an existing society. The Court ruled that registration under Section 9 cannot be used to indirectly fragment an existing society.
The Tribunal held that an appeal filed before a Bench lacking territorial jurisdiction is not maintainable and cannot be transferred. Liberty was granted to approach the correct Bench with a delay condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that EIS paid to originators is not subject to TDS because the originator had not subscribed to PTCs and was not an investor. Since statutory conditions under Section 194LBC were not met, demand under Sections 201 and 201(1A) was deleted.
