ITAT confirmed that the amended 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE applies prospectively from April 2017 onwards. For earlier transactions, only the 30% rate applies, safeguarding taxpayers from retrospective burden.
ITAT ruled that the amendment requiring aggregation of consideration under Section 194-IA applies only from October 2024. For earlier years, TDS applicability must be determined individually per buyer-seller transaction.
If a Scheduled caste person converted to any other religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, he immediately loses the membership of the Scheduled Caste status. In this, the Court also explained that if such a person re-converted to Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism, then he had to establish conclusive proof of the following, to re-claim SC status.
In the absence of proper compliance with Section 65B and failure to establish a clear chain of custody, the digital evidence relied upon by the Revenue lacked legal admissibility and evidentiary value.
Excise exemption notifications based on use or intended use should be interpreted liberally in favour of the assessee as once the goods were used for the intended purposethe fact that a portion was incidentally used for other activities did not disentitle assessee from claiming the exemption.
CIT Vs Patel Engg. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The appeals before the Bombay High Court arose from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Years 2000–01 and 2001–02. The central issue was whether the assessee qualified as a […]
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration without proof of proper service of notice. The Court held the order invalid and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that Section 11B does not permit recovery of already sanctioned refunds. Recovery must follow separate legal provisions. The ruling clarifies limits of refund recovery powers.
The court held that issuing multiple demand notices for a single adjudication order is improper. It directed issuance of a composite notice to enable a single appeal.
The Tribunal found inconsistency between payment date and share allotment date, raising doubts about the transaction. It held that these factual issues require verification. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.
