ITAT Mumbai held that cash sales accepted and then deposit of said cash in bank account cannot be treated as deposits made out of any undisclosed income. Accordingly, addition under section 68 unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that single invisible contract involving supply of raw material and construction activity is classified under works contract hence taxable only from 01.06.2007. However, in case of divisible works contract clearly defining value of service portion and raw material is classifiable under ‘Commercial and Industrial Construction’ prior to 01.06.2007.
CESTAT Delhi held that player fees paid to Ishant Sharma by M/s. Knight Riders Sports Private Limited under the contract is for the activity of playing cricket and not for any promotional activity. Hence, service tax not leviable on the same under ‘Business Support Service’.
ITAT Bangalore held that section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act provides deduction to co-operative society from income earned by way of interest/ dividends from its investment with any other co-operative society.
ITAT Bangalore held that weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable for expenditure incurred on scientific research as the same are not certified by DSIR. However, such expenditure are allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act.
Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition in case of illegal excavation/ transportation of iron ore as discretionary jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr. P.C. cannot be exercised.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in terms of rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, the abatement of duty deposited in advance is available in respect of one of the machines of the manufacturer which was not engaged in the manufacture of notified goods i.e. branded and unmanufactured tobacco without lime tube for continuous period of 15 or more days.
CESTAT Chennai held that enhancement of assessable value in absence of all the details the imports whose values have been relied upon as contemporaneous prices by the lower adjudicating authority is unsustainable as reasonability of the same cannot be decided.
Bombay High Court held that Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which is simplicitor for a money claim is not maintainable. Accordingly, present writ relating to recovery of excess charges paid towards excise supervisory staff is also not maintainable.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in disproportionate asset case, most of the evidence is documentary and the said documents have already been submitted and therefore there is no question of tampering such an evidence. Hence, bail granted.
