Even though the assessee had opted for DTVSVA, the non-payment of tax meant the settlement did not materialize. The Tribunal restored the appeal to CIT(A) to examine all submitted evidence, ensuring a fair opportunity to contest additions.
Bombay High Court quashed and set aside Form SVLDRS 3 demanding amount under arrears category and directed department to determine the correct amount considering the declaration filed under Litigation category.
Karnataka HC confirms that compensation for land acquired under National Highways Act after 01.01.2014 is fully exempt under Section 96 of RFCTLARR Act, preventing any TDS or income tax deduction.
ITAT Chennai held that neurology conferences and workshops squarely fall within the ambit of education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, exemption under section 11 cannot be denied. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that since there was sufficient own funds to make investment/advances to its subsidiary, the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not warranted. Accordingly, AO directed to delete the addition.
Delhi High Court held that successive Bail Application filed with no change in circumstances is liable to be dismissed. Further, bail application is dismissed since applicant has already been declared an offender.
Court held that exemption under Section 10(23BBA) applies only to bodies constituted under State enactments, not to temples or deities whose income is separately taxable. Temples must seek relief under Sections 11–12 instead.
Court held that dividend remains income of the shareholder and DDT is an additional income tax covered under Article 2, restricting India’s taxing rights to 10% under Article 11 of the India–UK DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that courses not having any approval or affiliation with any authority cannot be ground to hold that the purpose is not charitable. Accordingly, benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act granted since activity of imparting education within meaning of section 2(15).
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the revocation of a customs broker licence for misdeclaring consignor details in diplomatic cargo. The ruling confirms findings of regulatory violations that facilitated gold smuggling.
