ITAT Jaipur held that the provision of section 194C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to work and not for purchase made which are liable for VAT. Hence, TDS u/s. 194C is not leviable as payments were made for purchase of material and not for any work contract.
Gujarat High Court held that excess drawback on account of availing Cenvat Credit facility was repaid with interest. Hence, refund of IGST paid on goods and services paid on exported goods being zero rates supplies is duly admissible.
CESTAT Chennai held that amount received for land reclamation and soil stabilization in the nature of site formation service provided in the course of construction of port is exempt from service tax vide notification 17/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that deduction given in sales invoice being discount, even though under nomenclature of commission, cannot be treated as commission for the purpose of levy of Service Tax under ‘business Auxiliary Service’.
CESTAT Kolkata held that works contract service including sub-contracts related to Railway is exempted from service tax vide notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20th June 2012.
CESTAT Allahabad dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as repeated adjournments were asked for in mechanical and routine manner.
ITAT Chennai held that notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act being issued mechanically by AO without going through the original assessment records and without verification of documents on records is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Kolkata held that payment of interest doesn’t arise in the case of revenue neutral situation and hence no interest is payable by the appellant.
Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition stating that it is premature to reach a fact conclusion whether Ethephon is an insecticide to which exemption is available or not available under Section 38(1)(b) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 as proceeding u/s 124 is pending.
ITAT Kolkata held that there is no finding that interest bearing funds have been applied for purpose of making investment. Further, on account of sufficient availability of interest free funds, interest disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) unjustified.
