Kerala High Court held that benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme (SVLDRS) admissible even though payment was affected after cut of date as extension since payment was made within period extended on account of COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court held that adjudication by an officer who had previously conducted an audit on the same issue displayed a pre-disposed mind, setting aside the impugned order for independent reconsideration.
Court held that exemption under Section 10(23BBA) applies only to bodies constituted under State enactments, not to temples or deities whose income is separately taxable. Temples must seek relief under Sections 11–12 instead.
The Court held that interest paid for delayed Agricultural Income Tax cannot be deducted under Section 37. Since AIT itself is not deductible, the related interest also fails eligibility. The ruling confirms that such payments do not qualify as business expenditure.
The High Court declined to interfere with a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) after the Department failed to produce a 2008 notice. The Court directed the assessee’s legal heirs to pursue the statutory appeal, noting the factual dispute requires appellate examination.
The Kerala High Court held that the Commissioner’s suo motu revision under Section 263 was unjustified, confirming that donations to other charitable trusts qualify as application of income under Section 11.
Court held that appeal against a confiscation order was time-barred and refused to condone delay. It ruled that lack of diligence after receiving demand notice barred intervention under Article 226.
The Court granted bail after noting that the investigation was almost complete and the accused had no prior criminal record. The ruling imposes strict conditions to ensure cooperation.
The High Court held that forklifts and cranes with on/off-road capability fall within Section 2(28) and require compliance with registration and tax provisions. Machinery designed for off-highway use but capable of road travel cannot claim exemption.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 201 were invalid because a binding interim order barred TDS on LTC payments. The ruling confirms that no default arises when deduction is judicially prohibited.
