CESTAT Mumbai allowed an SEZ service tax refund, holding Section 26 of the SEZ Act prevails and authorised operations cannot be denied on procedural grounds.
Calcutta HC dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after the remand report confirmed the disputed receipt was sale proceeds of investments, not an unsecured loan.
ITAT Delhi held Section 68 cannot apply to sale proceeds of disclosed investments already recorded in books. Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
ITAT Delhi held Section 68 inapplicable where shares were disclosed in an earlier year and sale proceeds were already offered as income, avoiding double taxation.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that non-submission of Forms A-1 and A-2 is only a procedural lapse. It allowed the exemption as the services were admittedly provided to an SEZ unit.
CESTAT Delhi held that the SEZ Act grants a statutory exemption overriding conditions in service tax notifications. It allowed the refund claims but denied interest on delayed refunds.
Supreme Court declared the right to walk on demarcated footpaths a fundamental right, enhanced MACT compensation and directed a legal framework.
ITAT Agra held Section 44AD could not apply where turnover exceeded the limit, adopted past profit history, allowed telescoping and deleted Section 43B addition.
CESTAT Allahabad held ex-gratia job charges for underutilised production capacity are compensation, not consideration for a taxable service under Section 66E(e).
CESTAT Delhi allowed refund of pre-deposit, holding payment under a wrong Service Tax registration is a rectifiable defect and cannot defeat a valid refund.
