ITAT clarified that education and camps on Jain principles cannot be treated as wholly religious. Registration u/s 80G can only be denied if religious expenditure exceeds the statutory 5% threshold.
ITAT Bangalore reverses a CIT(E) order, holding that teaching Vedas is a charitable activity, not a religious one, and an organization promoting it is eligible for Section 80G tax exemption. This decision relies on precedents that define Hinduism as a way of life.
Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, affirming that ITAT rightly remanded the case to TPO to reassess ALP of intra-group services, stressing that Section 92C(3) conditions must be examined before adjustments.
Tribunal held that EDC paid to HUDA is a statutory levy and not interest, quashing disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) based on erroneous application of Section 194A.
Bombay High Court ruled on TDS for Nanavati Hospital. It confirmed doctors are independent professionals, but remanded the AMC matter for re-evaluation.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that compensation for land acquired under the NH Act is exempt from income tax, citing the RFCTLARR Act and Supreme Court precedents.
Karnataka High Court held that in terms of section 142(7)(b) and 142(8)(b) of the KGST Act all types of amounts refundable are to be refunded back in cash without there being any distinction between cash deposit or ITC/ECL deposit. Accordingly, 70% pre-deposit made through ITC/ECL is to be refunded in cash.
Department had not been able to show any arrangement to have been made by assessee in the course of selling its shares of M/s. HCL Technologies Pvt. Ltd. amounted to Impermissible Avoidance Arrangement (for short, ‘IAA’) and it was a pure trading done by assessee with no knowledge.
Application filed by Canara Bank under Section 7 of the Code read with Rule 4(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 for initiating CIRP citing the default payment of a debt amount beyond Rs. 1 Crore as evident from the Form-C and Form-D of the NeSL certificate, from the loan account statement of S.S. Aluminium Private Limited, Corporate Debtor maintained by the Financial Creditor and from the acknowledgement of debt instrument executed by the Respondent was admitted.
Supreme Court held that speculative investors cannot be permitted to trigger CIRP as this would undermine revival, destabilise projects, and prejudice genuine homebuyers. Accordingly, orders, setting aside admission of the Section 7 applications, stand affirmed.
