Addition made by the lower authorities to the extent of opening balance of share premium of Rs.63,32,28,987/- u/s 68 in AY 2018-19 was unjustified as share premium received in earlier years had already been examined and verified in the income-tax assessments framed u/s 143(3) and the explanation furnished by assessee had been accepted.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the process of slitting jumbo rolls does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
On the Anti-Smuggling front, it was an eventful week. Officers of the Delhi Airport & General Commissionerate detected a case of smuggling of bejeweled watches by an international passenger arriving at the Delhi Airport.
It appears that after completing the assessment the assessing officer addressed the PCIT stating that certain error has occurred in the assessment order and requested him to review the order under section 263 of the Act.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that a preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by the High Court on the issue whether the dispute is arbitrable or not while deciding an application made under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators.
Karnataka High Court held that National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) is a surcharge and can be levied even in absence of levy of excise duty.
NCLAT Delhi held that default of instalment of Settlement Agreement does not come within the definition of operational debt as it does not fall within the definition of additional debt as per Section 5(21) of the IBC.
CESTAT Delhi held that payments received for arranging and operating of outbound tour is export of service and hence service tax not payable on the same.
ITAT Mumbai held that NABARD has acted as nodal or implementing agency for the schemes framed by GOI. Hence the amounts transferred to Tribal Development Fund/Watershed Development Fund are diverted at source itself and hence not taxable in the hands of the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held that excess premium paid by the assessee on redemption of preference shares cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(d) or section 2(22)(e) and hence deleted the addition.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
