ITAT Mumbai held that foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee attributable to purchase of material is revenue expenditure and it cannot be included in the cost of project. Accordingly, the same is allowable as deduction.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, because, the issue of exemption u/s.11 of the Act, has been considered by the AO while completing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, order passed by the CIT(Exemptions) u/s.263 of the Act unsustainable.
Bombay High Court held that plea of defect in the notice cannot be accepted as it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee “clearly understood” what was the purport and import of notice issued under section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that documents seized from employees cannot be considered as having any evidentiary value and cannot be considered to have trustworthiness, since no other corroborative material was brought on record to support the veracity of the same. Hence, documents seized from employees cannot be relied upon for denying exemption u/s 11.
ITAT Kolkata held that the Indian Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act as ICC is not carrying on any activity of holding meetings, seminars and conferences for business purpose but only in support its main object hence it is not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act even post amendments.
ITAT Hyderabad held that assessee being a film artist, physical fitness is a part and parcel of his profession, but it cannot be held to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the profession of the assessee. Hence, disallowance of physical fitness expenditure justifiable in law.
Kerala High Court held that as importer-seller classified the HSN 8443 3100, the purchaser/re-seller cannot be said to have wilfully classified the machines under a wrong head with the intention to evade payment of correct/higher rate of tax. Hence, penalty unsustainable.
Gauhati High Court held that industrial units which was not required to be registered under the Central Excise Act, either due to low threshold limit or as manufacturing goods that were exempted, cannot be denied benefit of budgetary support scheme.
CESTAT Mumbai held that witnesses relied upon by the central excise authorities are not acceptable evidence in the absence of cross-examination that was denied. Hence, matter alleging clandestine removal mainly resting upon certain statements is remanded back to enable cross-examination.
Supreme Court held that contract involving hiring of motor vehicles/ cranes, without transfer of right to use, is not covered by provisions of Sales Tax Act or the VAT Act.
