The Telangana High Court held that if a Sub-Registrar refuses registration, reasons must be recorded and communicated under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A and 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after implementation of the faceless scheme were without jurisdiction. The Court quashed the notices while preserving the Revenue’s rights subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The Telangana High Court permitted manual filing of a revocation application even after dismissal of a delayed appeal against GST registration cancellation. The ruling highlights that procedural delays and portal limitations should not deprive taxpayers of an opportunity to seek restoration of registration.
The Tribunal held that section 50 merely prescribes a special method for computing gains on depreciable assets and does not convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset. Consequently, long-term capital losses were permitted to be set off against such gains under section 74.
The ruling clarifies that consignment notes carry legal significance under the Finance Act and Service Tax Rules for determining GTA status. Without such documents, a transporter cannot be subjected to service tax as a Goods Transport Agency.
The Tribunal ruled that the guideline value recorded in a registered document is not conclusive for computing capital gains if the assessee proves that a higher amount was genuinely paid. The decision underscores the importance of substantive evidence over mere recitals in the sale deed.
The Rajasthan High Court held that an order restoring appeals through review proceedings is not separately appealable under the Benami Act. The Court ruled that Order 47 Rule 7 CPC barred such challenges.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to properly apply the principles governing section 80P deductions relating to nominal members, statutory deposits, and co-operative society investments. The matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with settled law.
Addition of ₹90 lakh made under section 69A towards alleged cash payment for purchase of property as well as the addition made under section 69C on account of alleged unaccounted purchases was deleted as additions based solely on third-party documents, without independent corroboration or evidence directly linking the transactions to assessee were not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that donations to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund made towards CSR obligations are specifically excluded under section 80G, while no similar embargo exists for other eligible institutions. Consequently, the assessee’s claim for deduction was allowed in full.
