In the recent landmark decision, CESTAT Ahmedabad has allowed Cenvat Credit on sugar cess paid as CVD on raw sugar imports, favoring Renuka Sugars Limited. This ruling, echoing several previous judgements, clarifies the position of cess as excise duty.
CESTAT Chennai held that differential duty not payable as there is no contravention of Valuation Rules as an important part of the machine sold has been replaced with a less advanced component, slight reduction in the value of the machine sold is found to be normal.
ITAT Visakhapatnam in case of Vishnu Srinivasa Rao Kakarla Vs ITO clarifies that AO cannot travel beyond his jurisdiction to verify cash withdrawals when limited scrutiny was for verifying cash deposits.
Detailed review of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in favor of the assessee, Tarik Tondon, where the reassessment order was cancelled due to lack of verification of the information which initiated the reopening.
ITAT Pune in case of Rajendra Supadu Jadhav Vs DCIT allows section 54F deduction based on date of assignment deed for transfer of lease rights in MIDC plots.
The recent ITAT Delhi ruling in the Shantiniketan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT case allows high-interest payments under commercial expedience, refuting disallowance under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi overturns an ex-parte assessment passed under Section 144, citing insufficient opportunity for the assessee. The case is returned to the AO for a re-examination in compliance with the law.
The Ahmedabad ITAT overturned a decision by the CIT(A), ruling in favour of Ketan M. Chalishazar HUF on an error made by his broker during a share transaction. The tribunal highlights the importance of accurate code modifications.
Learn about the annual return on Foreign Liabilities and Assets (FLA) and its filing requirements for entities with foreign investments. Discover the penalties for non-compliance and gain insights into the FLA return filing process.
In the case of Rammohan Kordale vs ACIT, ITAT Bangalore held that money transferred between assessee’s joint bank accounts cannot be classified as unexplained money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act.
