Delhi High Court held that the consideration received in terms of Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) cannot be termed as Royalty under Article 12 of the DTAA even if extensive services are rendered which includes access to written knowledge, processes, and commercial information in furtherance of the services.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an appellate authority can exercise the power u/s. 251(1)(a) to enhance the assessment only after giving a notice for enhancement. Accordingly, enhancement by CIT(A) without issuance of notice is untenable in law.
Rajasthan High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as application filed u/s. 270AA for immunity of penalty not decided by AO within prescribed time limit.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the phrase ‘duty of customs’ used in Section 26(1)(a) of SEZ Act only refers to duty leviable under Customs Act, 1962 but the said phrase does not include cess under GST Compensation Act. Thus, SEZ units are not exempted from payment of compensation cess on import of coal.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of purchases by treating it as bogus unjustified as the impugned purchases have been sold and the sales have been accepted as there cannot be any sale without purchases.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that demat/depository charges, transaction/ administrative charges and VSAP/TWS charges collected by sub brokers on behalf of the stock exchange are not liable to Service Tax.
ITAT Chennai held that there is no violation of provisions of section 269SS when all sale deeds were registered and cash payment was made at one go before the sub-registrar at the time of registration of sale deeds of plots. Hence, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
Supreme Court observed that there is difference between “law and order” and “public order” and held that breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that once the importer voluntary accepted the enhancement then the importer is estopped from challenging the same subsequently.
ITAT Delhi held that simultaneous issue of the DIN number is insignificant and superfluous exercise, in the absence of mentioning the DIN number on the body of AO’s order. Thus, Assessment order without DIN is void ab initio.
