ITAT Mumbai held that the partner should be entitled to all the deductions which he was entitled while computing his share of profits in the firm. Thus, interest expenditure incurred by the assessee, as capital was introduced from borrowed funds, should be allowed as expenditure against remuneration income from the firm.
CESTAT Delhi remanded the matter to designated authority in the matter of imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of MEG ‘Mono Ethylene Glycol’ as selective examination with respect to only one period was made as base for determination of injury.
Supreme Court held that services provided by the educational institutions IIT, Patna and NIT, Rourkela to the Government/ local authorities/ governmental authorities are eligible for exemption from service tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act treating share transactions as bogus merely on the basis of statement of the broker is unsustainable and bad-in-law.
Delhi High Court held that the renovation and refurbishment of the rooms, including washrooms and other facilities in the hotel which only improves efficiency of source of profit/income are revenue expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Leave & License Fee is assessable under the head “Profits & Gains of Business” and not under “Income from House Property”.
Delhi High Court held that ITAT misdirected itself on facts as addition was made on presumptive income without considering the loss in trading in equity and commodities and hence matter remanded to ITAT.
CESTAT Kolkata held that circular cannot impose new condition and restrict scope of the exemption notification. Accordingly, demand of customs duty based on condition imposed vide circular no. 24/98- Cus unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 unwarranted for non-reflection of investment in Schedule of Foreign Assets in return as it was not malafide or dishonest breach/ non-disclosure.
CESTAT Kolkata held that order of Commissioner (A) remanding the matter set aside as the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner has taken into account all such elements at the time of finalisation of provisional assessment.
