ITAT Hyderabad held that as assesse failed to appear before AO as well as before CIT(A) despite numerous opportunities, matter remanded back to CIT(A) subject to cost of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited in Prime Minister National Relief Fund.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Service Tax paid by the assesses under Rent-A-Cab Service and Outdoor Catering Service provided to its employees to transport them to the factory and back and to provide food to employees fall under input services and are entitled for CENVAT Credit.
ITAT Bangalore held that charging the income tax on the entire gross receipts without giving effect of the expenditures incurred by the assessee towards earning of the income.
ITAT Bangalore held that no exemption has been claimed by the assessee in the preceding year as application of income on the purchase of fixed assets. Accordingly, addition doesnot survive.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as per provisions of section 10 General Clause Act, if last working day happens to be a holiday then the authorities concerned have been given power to make the necessary compliance on the next working day.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that transfer of technical know-how and patent etc. are in pursuance to the slump sale and not by way providing the service do not fall within the definition of Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service and Intellectual Property Service. Accordingly, demand of service tax not sustainable.
Madras High Court held that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is legally impermissible.
ITAT Delhi held that expense on Social & Rural Development Programme are revenue in nature, accordingly, allowable under section 37
CESTAT Mumbai held that no amount of argument or depth of research can move ‘probiotics’ or, for that matter, ‘cultures of micro-organisms (excluding yeast)’ to chapter 21 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as proposed by the show cause notices.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act sustained as method adopted for determination of FMV of equity shares by the assessee is not as per method prescribed under rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules.
