CESTAT Chennai found that the Department’s case was based on an allegation that manpower services were used exclusively for insurance and mutual fund activities. The Tribunal held that the services were actually used across multiple business verticals, making the denial of CENVAT credit unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore restored the issue of consultancy fee deduction to the Assessing Officer after noting that additional evidence relating to services rendered had not been examined. The Tribunal directed a fresh review of the expenditure claim in light of the new material.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to meet export obligations under the EPCG Scheme does not automatically justify confiscation where there is no diversion or misuse of capital goods.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). The ruling reiterates that an ambiguous penalty notice can invalidate penalty proceedings.
ITAT held that reimbursement of salary costs of seconded employees could not be treated as Fees for Technical Services where the Indian company exercised exclusive control and supervision. The Tribunal found a clear employer-employee relationship during the secondment period and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal held that shares shown as non-current investments cannot automatically be treated as business expenditure for invoking Section 40A(2)(a). The matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The Madras High Court stayed the operation of a GST assessment and demand relating to seigniorage fee. The Court held that further action should await the Supreme Court’s decision on the same legal issue.
The Tribunal held that a customs refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not in the suggested format. It ruled that procedural format deficiencies alone do not justify denial of refund.
ITAT held that interest earned on deposits kept as security for obtaining business loans was attributable to the cooperative society’s business activity. The income was therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Hyderabad ITAT found contradictions in the TPO’s reasoning for excluding a comparable company due to alleged lack of RPT data. The Tribunal directed fresh verification and recomputation of the RPT filter before deciding whether the company should remain excluded.
