The Bombay High Court dismissed a tax appeal, ruling that interest earned by a real estate developer on income tax refunds and fixed deposits had a direct nexus with their main business of developing IT Parks and SEZs.
Bombay High Court disposed of a 1999 writ on ITAT premises, holding that additional Benches functioning since 2001 under interim orders need no further directions.
Bombay High Court upheld CIT(A) and ITAT orders deleting penalty of ₹2.75 lakh, holding that ad-hoc estimation of profit from alleged hawala purchases does not amount to concealment of income.
Delhi High Court rules that the Income Tax Department cannot claim funds from a Ponzi scam for tax dues, as the money is not “income” but “proceeds of crime.”
Karnataka High Court dismisses SBI’s appeal, upholding TDS demand for foreign travel LTC claims. The court cites a Supreme Court precedent that denies tax exemption for journeys with a foreign leg.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that attachment of bank account and retention of fund by the authorities after payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount i.e. after pre-deposit u/s. 107 of the GST Act is not justifiable. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
Madras High Court held that retrospective withdrawal of purchase tax subsidy granted to sugar mill has no sanction of law. Accordingly, the assessee is entitled to the full benefit of subsidy as set out in the Government Orders issued in 1984.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. Notably, sub-section (2) of section 35-G provides that the party aggrieved by an order passed by the appellate tribunal may file appeal to the High Court within a period of 180 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the aggrieved party.
Delhi High Court held that imposition of uniform levy of UF-10 and property tax at the rate of 20% on 3-star and above hotels is, therefore, a valid exercise of legislative discretion and withstands scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Delhi High Court held that AO has sufficient information available with him to carry out reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, reopening of assessment u/s. 148A of the Income Tax Act upheld and petition dismissed.
