Madras High Court held that provision of fixing time limit under Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS Scheme) is directory in nature and not mandatory. Accordingly, time limit for making payment of tax under SVLDRS Scheme is directory in nature.
Delhi High Court held that in the absence of a conferral of any power upon the Tax Research Unit (TRU), it cannot issue clarification regarding the classification of polypropylene woven and non-woven bags under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Accordingly, Circular dated 31 December 2018 issued by TRU is quashed and set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards suppression of profit by not reflecting properly the opening and closing stock unsustainable as assessee is only a commission agent and assessee has recorded the transactions to square up the sales and purchases in its Books of Accounts and declared only the commission income as its main source of income.
ITAT Delhi held that benefit of deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Income Tax Act entitled as ground handling and cargo handling services are included within the scope of infrastructure facility.
ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure incurred on foreign currency on telecommunication charges and provision of technical services outside of India should not be excluded from export turnover for the purpose of computing u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that any penalty or compensation received for any loss or damage caused by breach or non performance of the terms of the contract is not by way of consideration. Accordingly, service tax is not leviable on the same.
Madras High Court held that prosecution under section 276CC of the Income Tax Act justified due to non-filing of return within the stipulated time and wilfully concealing its true and correct income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that initiation of revisionary proceedings by issuing show cause notice u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act without Document Identification Number (DIN) makes the entire proceedings invalid-in-law.
Delhi High Court held that Delhi Gymkhana Club is exigible to Luxury tax on activity of providing residential accommodation by a hotelier for monetary consideration under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996.
CESTAT Allahabad held that in case of foreign export proceeds, the Indian Exporters are not the recipient of services from the Foreign Bank/ intermediary bank. Accordingly, demand of service tax as service recipient on bank charges thereon unjustified.
