The Tribunal held that service tax under RCM could not be demanded where the department failed to prove that the assessee held mining rights or paid royalty for a mining licence. It also ruled that reliance solely on balance sheet entries was insufficient.
The High Court held that failure to pass the order giving effect within the time prescribed under Section 153 resulted in abatement of the assessment proceedings. It ruled that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive once the assessment itself had abated.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory post-import obligations under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. Following cancellation of the CDECs, the customs duty demand, confiscation and penalties were upheld.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order directing the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It extended the time for filing the appeal by two weeks while allowing all legal and factual grounds to be raised before the Appellate Authority.
The Madras High Court held that unexplained trade credits falling under Section 68 cannot qualify for deduction under Section 80-IA. The assessee failed to establish the source and identity of the creditors.
The Tribunal restricted the Section 14A disallowance to exempt income and deleted additions relating to bad debts, tea and coffee expenses, and hotel accommodation after finding the statutory requirements for disallowance were not met.
The ITAT held that the CPC could not make adjustments under Section 143(1) without first issuing the mandatory intimation to the assessee. The Revenue’s appeals were dismissed as the statutory procedure had not been followed.
The ITAT Mumbai held that Fees for Technical Services were taxable at 10% under section 115A(1)(b) since the RBI’s automatic approval mechanism satisfied the statutory requirements. The Tribunal ruled that the 15% DTAA rate could not be applied where domestic law provided a more beneficial rate.
The ITAT Delhi held that the CIT(A) must pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) and cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-compliance. It remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after granting proper opportunity to the assessee.
The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not make a disallowance under Section 14A when the case was selected only for limited scrutiny regarding deduction under Section 57. As no approval for complete scrutiny was obtained, the addition was deleted.
