Bombay High Court held that the expression ‘a residential house’ in unamended Section 54(1) of the Act includes more than one residential house. Thus, sale proceeds of one residential house used for purchase of multiple residential house qualifies for exemption u/s. 54(1).
The above statutory provision makes it clear that in event the Applicant, fails to comply with the second Proviso to modify the application within thirty days from the date of amendment, deeming provision of law shall come into play and the application shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
Competition Commission of India (CCI) has closed a case by ADIF against Google, ruling that allegations over its ad policies were already decided in prior cases.
Delhi High Court upheld the attachment order under PMLA in view of appellant’s criminal and appellant’s failure to discharge the burden of proving the facts in support of his claim that the attached properties are untainted and not obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity.
CCI orders a probe into Google’s AdTech stack after ADIF alleged abuse of dominance, including tying services and self-preferencing, consolidating the case.
Gujarat High Court held that not providing seven days time for filing of reply against notice in Form GST MOV-07 and passing of the impugned order u/s. 129(3) of the CGST Act amounts to flagrant breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ allowed.
Delhi High Court held that provisions of section 75(5) of the CGST Act cannot be interpreted in a manner that there has to mandatorily be a minimum of three adjournments afforded to every person. Accordingly, writ dismissed as not entertained.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once cash sales are accepted as genuine for the purpose of determining profit, the same cannot be added again as unexplained cash credit by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Chennai rules that the buyer’s intention is irrelevant when classifying land. The court upholds the agricultural nature of land based on revenue records, not the buyer’s plans.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules on the admissibility of new claims during reassessment and appellate proceedings, distinguishing between the limited scope of Section 147 and the broader jurisdiction of appellate authorities.
