ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
CESTAT Delhi held that definition of tour operator has been amended from time to time since it was brought into the service tax net. Accordingly, on account of confusion with regard to scope of tour operator service, demand of only normal time period sustained and demand of extended time period set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation on Solar Power Plant installed on office building which is part of factory and electricity so generated is used for factory only is allowable as per provision of law.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years without bringing on record that escapement of income was occurred by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all the material facts is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that as capital profit are to be excluded while computing book profit u/s 115JB, similarly, the adjustment of loss could also not be allowed u/s 115JB. Hence, loss on sale of investment could not be reduced from Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Indore held that the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act without any assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee is not valid and liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court held that CTH 2008 19 20 specifically covers roasted areca nut / betel nut, accordingly, when there is a specific entry covering a product/commodity, the test of common parlance is irrelevant in determining classification.
Bombay High Court held that the transaction of payment of royalty for use of technology is inextricably linked with manufacturing activity and should be aggregated with other international transactions in the manufacturing segment for the purposes of benchmarking the same
Chhattisgarh High Court held that an application for extension of time by exporter to make exports beyond the period of 6 months was rejected by the department after more than 2 ½ years. Accordingly, exporters granted benefit of rebate of excise duty paid on excisable goods exported beyond time limit of 6 months.
ITAT Delhi held that that the departmental authorities cannot question the validity of Tax Residency Certificate. Once the assessee holds a valid TRC, it proves the residential status of the assessee as resident of Mauritius, hence, it will be eligible to treaty benefits.
