Supreme Court admits appeal by Tesco Bengaluru against CESTAT ruling on reverse charge service tax for seconded overseas employees, relying on the Northern Operating Systems precedent.
CESTAT Chennai rules Service Tax cannot be levied on the TDS amount paid by an Indian company on behalf of a foreign service provider, as TDS is not ‘consideration’ for the service.
This ruling invalidates an income tax addition that relied entirely on electronic data (an excel sheet) seized from a third party without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The ITAT stressed that in the absence of corroborative evidence, clear linking of the assessee to the data, and providing due process, the addition made was illegal and unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Allahabad quashes Service Tax demand against a contractor, ruling that reliance solely on unverified ITR and Form 26AS data is insufficient and invalidates the extended limitation period.
Bombay High Court admits Revenue’s appeal against ITAT. Issues concern if contracts reallocated to JV members require TDS (S. 194C) and where profit should be taxed.
Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(4) of the India-Norway DTAA (7.5% presumptive tax on gross receipts), rejecting the Assessing Officer’s attempt to tax it under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer’s mechanical application of Rule 8D for Section 14A disallowance was invalid without recording proper satisfaction. The Tribunal directed that only net interest (interest paid less interest earned) and only those investments that yielded exempt income should be considered for re-computation, upholding the assessee’s legal objections.
Shringar Developers wins ITAT appeal. Tribunal rules that higher taxable interest than expense negates Section 14A disallowance. Interest on capital contribution to firm held for commercial expediency under Section 36(1)(iii).
ITAT Delhi ruled AO cannot use Section 154 to disallow ESI/PF deduction based on the later Supreme Court Checkmate judgment, as the issue was previously debatable.
Drawing on precedents, the ITAT held that a mandatory Section 153D approval for search assessments must be proven. The assessment order was set aside because the Department could not locate or produce the JCIT’s prior approval and satisfaction note after eight years.
