ITAT Delhi held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act allowed since assessee is able to prove the nature of land as agricultural land based on revenue records and income tax return, wherein, income accepted as agricultural income.
Karnataka High Court held that taxpayer cannot be permitted to retract voluntary disclosed income admitted in return of income filed nearly 14 months after the survey without giving evidence of coercion. Accordingly, appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejecting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking guarantee fee is not justifiable since assessee doesn’t undertake any risk of profit or loss on the said transaction.
Kerala High Court held that provisional release is not contemplated under section 130 of the CGST Act. Also held that continued detention of goods is not legally sustainable, merely because the proceedings u/s. 130 is in progress.
ITAT Bangalore held that year-end expense provisions can attract TDS under the IT Act. The matter was restored for limited verification to determine liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A).
NCLAT Delhi held that post approval of Resolution Plan, the Committee of Creditors [CoC] itself is also bound by its finality and cannot be allowed to tinker with or modify the resolution plan including mechanism of distribution. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The Gujarat AAR held that semen sorting services performed on bovine semen qualify as job work related to animal husbandry. As an intermediate production process under SAC 9986, the service is exempt from GST.
The ITAT ruled that extensive repairs to a 25-year-old factory building were revenue in nature since no new asset or enduring advantage arose. The addition treating the expense as capital was deleted.
The Tribunal ruled that a reassessment order passed prior to notification of the faceless reassessment scheme under Section 151A was without jurisdiction. As the enabling notification came after the assessment date, the entire order was declared void.
The Bombay High Court held that a separate cooperative society could not be registered for shops forming part of a single building already governed by an existing society. The Court ruled that registration under Section 9 cannot be used to indirectly fragment an existing society.
