ITAT Delhi held that addition primarily on the basis of statements alone and no other corroborative evidence and that too without giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the said persons is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that initiation of CIRP under section 9 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 unsustainable as dispute regarding credit/refund of the service tax amount existed prior to the issue of demand notice under section 8.
CESTAT Chennai held that Foreign Telecommunication Operator (FTO) is not the service receiver, but the visitors to India who use the service during their visit to India, are the service receiver and as per appellant’s own case the activity amounts to export of service and therefore, not exigible to Service Tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that cenvat credit availed on trading activity is not admissible, accordingly, cenvat credit admissible on common input services needs to be reversed by invoking the extended period of limitation.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act based on seized dumb documents found in the premises of third party is unsustainable in law as the seized documents are merely loose sheets not forming part of the books of account of the assessee and that they do not constitute admissible evidence.
Gujarat High Court held that mere rendering of services cannot be roped into Fees for Technical Service (FTS) unless the person utilizing the services is able to make use of the technical knowledge etc. Simple rendering of services is not sufficient to qualify as FTS.
Delhi High Court held that Sanitaryware meant for use in the kitchen, toilets or bathroom and although it may portray some art work in its designs, it is not artwork or handicraft Therefore, duty drawback could only be claimed in category of goods falling Chapter 74 vide item No. 741802.
CESTAT Allahabad held that tribunal has no jurisdiction to prescribe the rate of interest which is prescribed by the Government of India in terms of Notification issue under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
ITAT Mumbai held that surplus/ income from pension scheme/ business is exempt under section 10(23AAB) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that post amendment to provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act as effective from 1st April 1989, the Act does not require the assessee to establish that the debts have in fact become bad before writing off. Accordingly, addition with regard to disallowance of claim of write off of bad debts duly deleted by CIT(A).
