The issue was whether long-term financing income qualified for deduction despite reclassification of receipts. The Tribunal held the entity eligible, citing statutory changes, past approvals, and consistency across years.
The tribunal ruled that Section 50C could not apply because the DVO’s valuation ignored the impact of tenants and owner-occupied units. The key takeaway is that incorrect valuation methodology invalidates deemed consideration adjustments.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could enhance income by adding entire purchases when the AO had only made a small commission addition. The Tribunal held that such enhancement, without fresh material and beyond the subject matter of appeal, is illegal.
ITAT Hyderabad held that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 06.06.2024 beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Karnataka High Court provides guidelines for arriving at differential tax amount due to change in tax regime from VAT to GST on works contract executed with various State Government agencies.
ITAT Hyderabad held that matter of TP adjustment of purchase of raw materials, assembling parts and sale of goods, and interest on trade receivables is remanded back since there are clear mistakes in computation of margins of comparables.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan for Latakisan Construction P. Ltd. as submitted by Successful Resolution Applicant stands approved as approved by 100% Committee of Creditors. Accordingly, resolution plan is allowed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings fail when the foundational assumption behind reopening is factually incorrect. It ruled that “reasons to believe” must exist in reality at the time of recording, failing which the entire reassessment becomes void ab initio.
The Authority refused to rule on roasted areca nut classification, holding that the issue had already been conclusively decided by a High Court. A statutory bar prevented reconsideration despite tariff renumbering.
The advance ruling held that a vertebral body replacement implant functions as a substitute for an absent vertebra and therefore falls under other artificial parts of the body.
