The Tribunal dismissed the assessee’s appeal, confirming that opting for Section 115BAA overrides the 20% LTCG rate under Section 112.
CAAR Mumbai held that unvulcanised compound rubber made of natural rubber, carbon black, and stearic acid is classifiable under Heading 4005 1000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
CAAR Mumbai ruled that customized metal chassis, covers, and heatsinks used in data center switches are classifiable under 8517 79 90 as parts of communication apparatus and eligible for Nil customs duty under Notification No. 57/2017-Customs.
The ITAT Ahmedabad sent back a case involving an addition of Rs.1.17 crore for unexplained cash deposits to the AO. The remand was necessary because the CIT(A) issued an ex-parte order without verifying the evidence submitted by the assessee.
Tribunal held that filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement, not a mandatory condition for exemption under Section 11, allowing relief to a charitable trust despite a four-day delay in uploading audit report.
Court held that assignment of leasehold rights amounts to transfer of immovable property and not supply of service, thereby exempting it from GST liability.
Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals challenging the allowance of investment deduction under Section 32A for AY 1984-85 and 1985-86. The court noted the tax effect was below the CBDT’s monetary limit and the appellant failed to serve the respondents for years.
The Delhi High Court overturned a ₹19.79 lakh ex-parte GST assessment order, directing the Adjudicating Authority to rehear the case on merits. The ruling mandates that the Petitioner deposit the tax amount of ₹10.22 lakh and file a reply by the specified deadline.
ITAT ruled that the appeal dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating merits violated natural justice. The Tribunal directed a fresh review, emphasizing that taxing gross receipts without allowing legitimate expenditure is not in accordance with law.
ITAT found authorities erred by upholding CPC’s denial of exemption solely because assessee filed ITR-7 instead of ITR-5. Ruling emphasizes that denying a just claim over procedural non-compliance causes undue hardship to taxpayer.
