ITAT Kolkata held that exercising revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act purely on facts which are verifiable from records of the assessee is not justifiable and hence liable to be quashed.
Land sold by assessee was agricultural Land and did not qualify as capital asset in terms of Section 2(14)(iii) as it was subsequent to purchase of land, its use was changed to non-agriculture purpose, therefore, the capital gain earned on the piece of land as not being liable to tax.
Read about the ITAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of Sanghamitra Prakash Patel vs. ITO where a penalty was imposed on the assessee for failure to appear before the CIT(A).
Read about the CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of Jindal Saw Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, where confiscation of ‘Plate Leveler’ parts was quashed.
Read about CESTAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of GlaxoSmithKline Asia Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner of Customs, where findings of SVB were not considered binding.
Madras High Court quashes a cheque dishonour case, ruling an illegal claim cannot be construed as legal. Detailed analysis of Davidraj Vs V. Pavel’s case
Read about CESTAT Delhi’s decision in the case of Incredible Indian Moments Pvt Ltd versus Commissioner (Appeals) and Additional Director General, where Service Tax demand on tour operators was quashed.
CESTAT Mumbai criticizes Customs Department for confiscating immovable property without notice, compromising the integrity of the adjudication process. Details of the case explained.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd., stating no service tax on computer-to-computer linkage charges for stock broking companies. Details of the case here.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that service tax isn’t applicable to materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient during construction. Read the full case analysis.
