CESTAT Delhi held that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Here, it was merely suppression of facts but intent to evade payment of service tax was absent.
CESTAT Chennai held that as the demand was raised on the basis of the books of accounts which was not hidden from the department, there was no wilful suppression or mis-statement of facts with intent to evade tax and hence invocation of extended period not justified.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere use of the word “commission” in the clause dealing with terms of payment would not mean that “commission” was paid by the seller. The goods were sold on principal to principal basis and payment to buyer was expenses incurred by overseas buyer and not commission. Hence, service tax not payable.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance towards payment of PF & ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) unjustified as the amount is deposited before the due date of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune held that addition towards on-money receipts sustained based on seized document by invoking the statute presumption under section 292C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Gauhati held that deduction of tax at source not liable as payment of rent was made to assessee who are not liable to pay tax in terms of exemption u/s 10(26) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, assessee cannot be held to be ‘assessee in default’.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unaccounted cash receipts on the basis of seized documents i.e. rough notes duly supported with corroborative evidence sustained.
ITAT Hyderabad held that waiver of the principal amount, which was taken for trading purpose, which is credited to the profit & loss account results in income in the hands of assessee and accordingly taxable.
ITAT Delhi held that denial of pre-operative expenses like brokerage and commission expenses, business promotion expenses, vehicle running expenses, etc. intricate to the nature of business activity is unsustainable.
ITAT Pune held that omission of claiming long term capital loss at the time of filing of original return was not bona fide. Accordingly, rejection of claim of the same in revised return unsustainable in the eyes of law.
