Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that mere transfer of right to use any goods or even transfer of goods to be used in works or not shall not be a ‘sale’ unless it is supported by consideration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the deposit insurance activity of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai (DICGC) falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under “General Insurance Business”.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-valuation of goods without first rejecting the transaction value of the goods is not in accordance with law. Show cause notice without proposal of rejection of transaction value or demanding differential duty is both speculative and presumptive.
Amalgamation scheme takes effect only on and from the date it was sanctioned by the High Courts of Madras and Calcutta coupled with the date on which the shareholders of the Subsidiary Company becomes the shareholders of the Holding Company as provided in the sub-clauses. T
Ld. AO has disallowed the provision for sick leave amounting to Rs. 80,51,334/- which has already been disallowed by the assessee in its computation of taxable income. Para 5.15 of CIT(A)’s order at page 17 refers. Therefore, sustenance thereof will amount to double disallowance.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that department cannot pass order under section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) without recording of proper reasons. Accordingly, the order attaching the accounts is set aside.
Vrl Logistics Ltd Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad) No post import condition in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. – CESTAT quashes Tax & Penalty demand, confiscation of aircrafts not sustainable We find that the issue in the present matters relates to the grant of benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3- 2002 as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus. […]
ITAT Mumbai held that foreign tax credit duly available even if form no. 67 is filed along with the revised return as the form is filed before the completion of the assessment.
ITAT Chennai held that deduction towards purchase of air conditioner, furnishing of curtains, light fittings is allowable as cost of improvement while computing capital gains.
ITAT Mumbai held that AO took the plausible view of granting the benefit of mutuality after due application of mind. Accordingly, revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked merely because PCIT may entertain a different view in the matter.
