ITAT Delhi held that as receipt of an interest subsidy received under the scheme is not income at all and hence the same has to be excluded while computing book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
Karnataka High Court held that contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act doesn’t make the entire transaction of loan void. Non-payment of the same held guilty of commission of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Supreme Court of India granted reduction of amount towards compounding of offence under section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962 as the impugned foreign currency is already confiscated in the matter.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand solely on the basis of the statement of the person who was not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant is unjustified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service provided to Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. are exempted from the payment of service tax in terms of Notification No. 45/2010–ST dated 20.07.2010
CESTAT Kolkata held that as waste and scrap are not manufactured goods the legislature have consciously not made any provisions for reversal of any credit taken on duty paid inputs in case of clearance of waste and scrap
ITAT Delhi held that confirmation of addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the income Tax Act read with Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules without verification of the valuation report of the Chartered Accountant is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Pune held that with regard to first proviso to section 43CA of the Income tax Act effect of the tolerance margin of 10% is to be given retrospective effect i.e. made applicable even for the prior assessment years
ITAT Chennai held that addition for cash deposits out of marriage gift under section 69A partly deleted as in Indian Customs during marriages guests and relatives will give gift depending upon their social status and economic condition
Gauhati High Court held that rejected the pre-arrest bail as the informant referred to mobile call screenshots which project that the petitioner repeatedly called him to mount pressure to compromise the matter.
