The Nagpur ITAT held that exemption under Section 54B requires evidence of active agricultural operations and not merely agricultural classification in revenue records. The assessee’s failure to produce supporting evidence led to denial of exemption.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) cannot be collected on compounding fees recovered from illegal miners. The Court ruled that the provision applies only to lawful lease holders, licence holders, or contractual mining rights holders.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease holders, licence holders, or persons granted mining rights. Compounding fees collected from illegal miners were held outside its scope.
The ITAT held that stamp duty valuation could not be blindly adopted where the property was affected by BBMP demolition proceedings for unauthorized construction. The Tribunal accepted the actual purchase price as fair market value and deleted the addition.
The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial violate Article 21. The Court clarified that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
Tribunal dismissed a Revenue appeal after finding that additions were made solely on basis of entries in a seized Excel file. It held that presumptions and unverified notings cannot replace concrete evidence.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused linked to alleged fake GST billing and forged documents. The Court noted that the offence was triable by a Magistrate and the petitioner had already spent about six months in custody.
Delhi ITAT held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on Investigation Wing reports without independent enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to alleged bogus share capital.
Court held that amended gratuity rules effective from July 2013 governed all employees uniformly and prevailed over inconsistent provisions in the HR manual. The appeal seeking enhanced gratuity was dismissed.
Delhi ITAT held that notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 without digital signatures are invalid in e-proceedings. The Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment as void ab initio.
