ITAT Delhi held that initiation of action u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of shortfall in TDS on year end provisions reported in Form 3CD of the assessee cannot be faulted. Accordingly, matter remanded to AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(E) failed to examine the aspects as directed by the High Court in the matter of application for registration under section 10(23C)(via). Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(E).
CESTAT Kolkata held that duty demand alleging overvaluation cannot be sustained as authority didn’t considered details of Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) which establishes full realization of value of export invoices from overseas importer.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on Employees Health Insurance and Group Accidental Insurance Policy is within the scope and ambit of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand of service tax on reimbursement of expenditure by the ship owner goes beyond the mandate of Section 67 the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, demand of service tax confirmed u/r 5 doesn’t survive as rule 5 itself has been held to be ultra vires of section 67.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 towards unsecured loan amount unjustified as identity and creditworthiness of creditors and genuineness of transaction duly proved by way of documentary evidences.
ITAT Delhi held that the expenditure not claimed cannot be disallowed while determining the taxable income. Hence, disallowance of contingent liability as expenditure unjustified as the same was never claimed as expenditure for the purpose of determining total income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act doesn’t attract as unsecured loan availed was repaid in the next financial year through cheque payments to the creditor and bank statement thereof was filed.
ITAT Mumbai held that cost reimbursement received towards providing support services is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act as well as Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
CESTAT Chennai held that the Savoury Oats / Silk Oats are classifiable under Chapter Heading 1104 12 00 attracting NIL rate of duty and the Muesli is classifiable under Chapter Heading 1904 10 90.
