State Bank of India Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal decided cross-appeals filed by a public sector bank and the Revenue for Assessment Year 2010-11. The case involved a large number of recurring banking-taxation issues including pension provisions, depreciation on securities, bad debts, section 14A disallowance, taxation of […]
The Mumbai ITAT found that the assessment order was passed without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish complete details or avail a hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Madras High Court held that suspension of GST registration through the impugned GST REG-17 notice was unwarranted. While allowing cancellation proceedings to continue, the Court quashed the suspension portion of the notice and directed adherence to the Suguna Cut Piece Center guidelines.
The dispute concerned Rule 6 demands on electricity transferred outside the manufacturing unit. CESTAT held that proportionate reversal of CENVAT credit amounts to non-availment of credit, making the demand unsustainable. The appeals were allowed and the demands, interest, and penalties were set aside.
CESTAT held that excavation, extraction, grading, and sorting of iron ore were mining-related activities and not Business Auxiliary Services. Since Mining Services became taxable only from 01.06.2007, no service tax could be levied for the prior period.
The Tribunal sent the issue of deduction for political donations back to the Assessing Officer after finding that bank transaction details had not been properly verified. Fresh adjudication was directed after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
CESTAT held that operation and maintenance of drinking water plants for Nagar Nigams related to municipal water supply functions. The consideration received was therefore exempt under Entry 25 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
CESTAT Kolkata held that shortages of raw materials and finished goods cannot be established through mere eye estimation. The Tribunal consequently quashed excise demands, interest, and penalties based on alleged stock shortages.
The Tribunal held that AY 2010-11 was outside the permissible ten-year assessment block computable under Section 153A. Applying the Delhi High Court’s interpretation in Ojjus Medicare, it found the notice itself invalid. As a result, the assessment proceedings were quashed and the appeals were allowed.
The Tribunal held that donations qualifying under Section 80G do not become ineligible merely because they are incurred as part of CSR obligations. The deduction was allowed following earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
