ITAT Bangalore held that AO allowed the claim of assessee after due application of mind and on proper consideration of the material available on record. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court held that the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot retain the amount of central sales tax paid by the appellant on the transaction of sale effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC.
CESTAT Allahabad held that clandestine removal is a serious charge and requires to be substantiated by evidence. Here, as department has not adduced any additional evidence to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal not sustained.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that appeal challenging the taxability of service, against the order of CESTAT, lies before Apex Court u/s 35L of the Finance Act, 1944 and not High Court.
ITAT Delhi held that the main purpose of incurring of huge AMP expenses has largely benefited assessee in India, with an incidental benefit arising to foreign AE. Hence, it is very difficult to accept existence of an international transaction.
Madras High Court held that as renewal fee relating to L-2 license under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 was paid within a period of one month from the date of expiry of renewal period, L-2 license should be duly issued.
Madras High Court held that it is clear that section 64(4) of the TNVAT Act doesnt empower the Commissioner to delegate the power to pass order to any lower authority.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that classifying micronutrients manufactured by the appellant, as plant growth regulators, under Chapter heading 38089304 instead of Chapter heading 3105 is unsustainable
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the transfer of copyright including the right to make copy of software for international business, any payment made in that regard would constitute Royalty. Thus, TDS is deductible u/s 195 on the payment made by the assessee to the non-resident supplier.
Madras High Court held that any order made under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax must be a speaking order. Accordingly, impugned order set aside as being cryptic and non-speaking.
