ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act untenable as cash deposited during the demonetization period duly explained.
CESTAT Delhi held that work orders include the charge supply of goods and fixing and finishing of tiles/granite/marbles such composite contracts involving both supply of goods and services are rightly classifiable under ‘work contract services’.
ITAT Jaipur held that income surrendered during the course of search cannot be said to qualify as an undisclosed income in the context of section 271AAB read with the explanation thereto and hence penalty u/s 271AAB of Income Tax Act not leviable.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that initiation of demand of tax u/s 74 may be either section 61 (scrutiny of returns) or section 65 (audit by tax authorities) or some other fact. Mere scrutiny of return not mandatory for initiation of demand of tax u/s 74.
ITAT Delhi held that if the assessee has shown the income, then, the assessee has every right to get credit of TDS even if deductor has deducted tax in subsequent A.Y.
ITAT Mumbai held that the bank guarantee rates cannot be considered for benchmarking corporate guarantee fees, therefore benchmarking of AO and DRP is also incorrect. It depends on creditworthiness of parties and benefit arising out of the same in the hands of the parties to the transaction.
ITAT Kolkata held that that law declared by a court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically. It is also well settled proposition that whenever, a previous decision is overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court, the previous decision is completely wiped out.
CESTAT Delhi held that where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgement decree order or direction of appellate authority Appellate Tribunal or any Court, the date of such judgement decree, order or direction shall be the relevant date.
NCLAT Delhi held that struck off of name from the list of Active Companies by ROC unsustainable as Company is having substantial movable as well as immovable assets, and hence it cannot be said that the Appellant Company is not carrying on any business or operations.
ITAT Mumbai held that activities of import of goods for re-export (i.e. trading activities) falls within the meaning of service defined u/s 2(z) of SEZ Act and accordingly the profits and gains derived from such services rendered from SEZ would be eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
