CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as investigating officers failed to comply with conditions of section 36B of the Central Excise Act with respect to obtaining certificate prior to relying upon the computer printout. Hence, demand set aside as based on unauthenticated data.
Delhi High Court held that drawback benefit is duly available on export of gold dore bars on payment of only additional duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act at the time of import.
ITAT Mumbai held that the material/information on which AO have re-opened the assessment is no longer existing being legally incorrect. Hence, action of AO to have issued notice of re-opening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act itself fails.
Delhi High Court held that telecommunication-company, providing telecommunication and ancillary support services to company based in Singapore on its own cannot be qualified as ‘intermediary service’ as they have entered into separate contracts with service providers in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) deleted the additions/ disallowances on the basis of information/ evidences filed before him without providing any opportunity to AO is in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A).
Bombay High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings. Once assessment order is passed, DRP has not power to pass any direction.
Bombay High Court held that services in the nature of ‘Veterinary Services’ and ‘Technical and Laboratory Testing Services’ did not fall under taxable category of Business Auxiliary Services.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 68 unsustainable as department failed to establish that assessee was involved in price manipulation even after purchasing and selling the shares on the stock exchange through SEBI registered stock.
Bombay High Court held that over a span of almost two years the department has failed to respond to the application of the petitioner for provisional release of the goods. Accordingly, provisional release of goods grant due to such inaction on the part department.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the same issue/ claim which was already decided and accepted during the course of regular assessment, without bringing any new material facts on records, is not valid as per law.
