CESTAT Mumbai held that rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 [valuation rules] is effected only when inputs are supplied and sale is effected to the buyer by the Principal Manufacturer. Thus, Rule 10A of valuation rules doesn’t come into play for all manner of ‘job-work’.
Supreme Court concluded that the matter relating to true construction, meaning and import of the expression ‘vacant land’ contained in Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 should be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
Bombay High Court held that the reopening notice can be sustained only on the basis of the ground mentioned in the reasons recorded. It is not open to the revenue to add and/or supplement later the reasons recorded at the time of reopening notice. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that services are rendered without transfer of technical knowledge, skill, know-how, etc. and accordingly the receipts doesn’t qualify as FIS (Fees for Included Services) under Article 12(4)(b) of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).
Allahabad High Court held that cancellation of GST registration based on direction of TTZ authorities constituted by Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India unjustifiable. Cancellation of GST registration has to be in accordance with section 29 read with rule 21 of GST Rules and no aid can be taken by any other statute.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as cash found during search involves cash belonging to the family members and cash belonging to company.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the data resumed from the computer print out alone cannot be relied upon to demand duty, without any corroborating evidence. Accordingly, duty demand set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the catering service provided to the students in the educational institution qualify for service tax exemption as per the notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
ITAT Delhi held that details of business promotion expenditure duly produced and it is also demonstrated that company being FMCG distribution/advertisement expenses for substantial part of expenditure. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that amendment to section 36(1)(va) is not applicable to A.Y. 2017-2018. Accordingly, as the employees contribution to provident fund is deposited before the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the same cannot be disallowed.
