CESTAT Kolkata held that when there is no other price available at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory to depot on stock transfer basis, the only way available is to determine the assessable value based on the best judgment method.
ITAT Mumbai held that as service tax doesn’t partake the character of income, the same cannot be included in the gross receipt of the assessee for the purpose of computing the presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that contract is for performance of the work and not for supply of manpower. Further, payments are for the works executed on tonnage basis/ unit basis and not on man hours or per person basis. Accordingly, service tax not payable on ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services’ (MRSAS).
ITAT Mumbai held that once the transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts and due explanation with regard to source of loan transaction is provided, addition u/s 69A towards unexplained money unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards payment of stamp duty in cash is not sustainable as source of income such as tuition income, interest income and rental income which is converting to in cash since 20 to 25 years and she is continuously filing her return of income with the department.
Gauhati High Court in case of recovery of royalty stayed the recovery by stating that as an ad-interim measure no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner for recovery of amount till the next returnable date.
ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure incurred on community development/CSR are allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that in respect of any adjustment proposed to be made u/s 143(1)(a), a prior intimation is required to be served on the assesse. Failure to issue such prior intimation to the assessee before making an adjustment by way of disallowing the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act is unjustified.
ITAT Indore held that in the absence of any major discrepancies or defects in the books of accounts, the rejection of the books of account only for want of tax audit report is not justified.
Bombay High Court held that it is settled principle that for the mistake on the part of the professionals, the litigant should not suffer. Accordingly, condonation of delay of 36 days in filing of return of income granted.
