The West Bengal AAR held that PP Packing Boxes manufactured from plastic granules qualify as plastic packing articles under tariff item 39231090. The ruling also clarified the classification of lids, caps, and closures under HSN 39235090.
The West Bengal AAR ruled that laundry soap and toilet soap are separate products under GST classification. Laundry soap bars weighing less than 500 grams were held taxable at 18%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding that the assessee had no knowledge of the assessment proceedings due to missed email notices. The assessment was restored for de novo adjudication.
GSTAT closed the proceedings after noting that the complainant had unconditionally withdrawn the complaint and entered into a settlement with the developer. The Tribunal also held that the matter had already been conclusively adjudicated earlier.
The Tribunal ruled that workload and assessment proceedings alone cannot justify extraordinary delay in filing an appeal. The Revenues appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to lack of convincing explanation.
When an educational society was found to be substantially engaged in genuine charitable activities, its exemption could not be denied under Section 13(1)(b) simply because a few specific expenditures happened to benefit individuals from a particular religious community.
The Tribunal ruled that pursuing a rectification remedy before filing an appeal constituted sufficient cause for delay. The CIT(A)s dismissal of the appeal on limitation was therefore set aside.
The ITAT held that exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was available from AY 2018-19 because an earlier coordinate bench had already directed grant of approval. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial discipline required adherence to its previous ruling.
The Tribunal observed that CBDT instructions prohibit the AO from examining issues beyond the specific reason for limited scrutiny without proper approval. Additions relating to non-demonetisation cash deposits were therefore restricted.
Bangalore ITAT held that once ownership of agricultural land and cultivation activities are accepted, reasonable agricultural income cannot be rejected altogether. The Tribunal allowed relief for income from rubber plantation activities.
