CESTAT Chennai held that cenvat credit availed on trading activity is not admissible, accordingly, cenvat credit admissible on common input services needs to be reversed by invoking the extended period of limitation.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act based on seized dumb documents found in the premises of third party is unsustainable in law as the seized documents are merely loose sheets not forming part of the books of account of the assessee and that they do not constitute admissible evidence.
Gujarat High Court held that mere rendering of services cannot be roped into Fees for Technical Service (FTS) unless the person utilizing the services is able to make use of the technical knowledge etc. Simple rendering of services is not sufficient to qualify as FTS.
Delhi High Court held that Sanitaryware meant for use in the kitchen, toilets or bathroom and although it may portray some art work in its designs, it is not artwork or handicraft Therefore, duty drawback could only be claimed in category of goods falling Chapter 74 vide item No. 741802.
CESTAT Allahabad held that tribunal has no jurisdiction to prescribe the rate of interest which is prescribed by the Government of India in terms of Notification issue under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
ITAT Mumbai held that surplus/ income from pension scheme/ business is exempt under section 10(23AAB) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that post amendment to provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act as effective from 1st April 1989, the Act does not require the assessee to establish that the debts have in fact become bad before writing off. Accordingly, addition with regard to disallowance of claim of write off of bad debts duly deleted by CIT(A).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) unsustainable as interest bearing funds were not utilized for non-business purpose and interest free advances were made in the course of business.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation invoked as appellant suppressed provision of service falling under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation’ service with intention to evade payment of tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that order passed without assigning any reasons is non-speaking order and, accordingly, the same is bad-in-law and is liable to be set aside.
