CESTAT Chandigarh held that job worker is the one who works upon the goods supplied directly or indirectly by the principal manufacturer. In absence of the said supply, appellants do not fit into the definition of ‘job worker’. Hence, demand unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment untenable as source of investment made by the appellant stands sufficiently explained.
Madras High Court held that by including processes such as refrigeration, re-packing, polishing, labelling, re-conditioning repair, remaking, refurbishing, testing, calibration and re-engineering within the ambit of manufacture, the legislature clearly intended an expansive understanding of what constituted ‘manufacture’ for the purposes of ‘deemed export’.
ITAT Raipur held that addition in case of bogus purchase transaction restricted to the extent of the difference between the gross profit of genuine purchases transactions and gross profit of bogus purchases transactions.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount under the head ‘capital gain’ not taxable as there is no transfer of any right, title, or interest in the property.
CESTAT Kolkata held that for the purpose of sub heading 27101920, the “light oils and preparations” are those of which 90% or more by volume (including losses) distil at 210 degree Celsius. Goods not meeting the requirements as specified under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 27 cannot be classified under CTH 27101920.
ITAT Hyderabad’s decision on Shridhar Madhav Diwan vs DCIT case emphasizes re-examination of denied foreign tax credit due to late Form No. 67, aligning with DTAA provisions and Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Delhi held that as per provisions of section 44 of the Income Tax Act there is no requirement of head wise bifurcation while computing income u/s 44 in case of insurance company. Thus, provisions of section 14A are not relevant to make a disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai held that employee’s contribution paid on day next to the due date and due date being a national holiday. Matter remanded back to AO for examining the payments made and allowing the deduction u/s 36(1)(va).
In a case between Prakash Lal Khandelwal and CIT, Jharkhand High Court determined that a one-day delay in uploading an order or generating a DIN does not render an assessment order unsustainable.
