CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the service charges are based on metric tons of the goods handled and not on the basis of wages of laborers deployed for the job, the activity of the loading, unloading of goods at port, cutting of bags, spreading of zola, cleaning of jetty is classified under Cargo Handling Service.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years without any tangible material amounts to change of opinion and according the same is invalid and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that payment of cash towards purchase of land exceeding the prescribed limit is duly disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that tax deduction at source doesn’t apply to service which are neither availed nor rendered and not even utilized in India. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that on execution of agreement when the possession was also handed over, the transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) and (vi) was complete and accordingly capital gain provisions gets applicable.
ITAT Mumbai held that in case of company is involved in providing illicit LTCG/ short term capital loss (accommodation entries), a substantial addition has to be made in the hands of beneficiaries and only a protective assessment can be made in the hands of company providing such accommodation entries.
Jharkhand High Court held that once penalty order is set aside, it will be presumed that there is no concealment and hence prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act will be quashed automatically.
ITAT Delhi held that attribution of profit from offshore supply and services to the Permanent Establishment unsustainable as assessee didn’t have any Permanent Establishment in India in the assessment years under dispute.
ITAT Mumbai held that Nostro Account Maintenance Charges are in the nature of bank charges levied on transaction and the same are not subject to tax deduction at source u/s. 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance of the same by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act unjustified.
Bombay High Court held that filing of refund application u/s. 27 of the Customs Act after more than two years of date on which excess duty payment was done is clearly beyond the period of one year as contemplated by the Customs Act and hence is barred by limitation.
