ITAT Mumbai held that provision of Sec. 69A of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied in respect of cash deposited which have been duly recorded in the books of account and had already been declared income in the return of income filed by the assessee.
Delhi High Court held that no additional concession could be included in BIFR [Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction] by the Income Tax Department without any extension or modification of the Scheme.
CESTAT Allahabad held that in terms of rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in case appellant doesn’t appeal when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, dismiss the appeal for default.
Uttarakhand High Court held that saving clause under section 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act permits the initiation of proceedings under service tax post 01.07.2017 i.e. post repeal of the Service Tax regime
Kerala High Court held that ‘electricity’ is not goods as per definition of goods u/s 2(xx) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT) accordingly not exingible to tax under KVAT.
ITAT Delhi held that the receipts from offshore supply of rolling stock (train sets) cannot be taxable in India as the transfer of title over the goods has taken place outside India.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, TPO can pass the order at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which period of limitation referred u/s 153 expires. TPO order passed after the prescribed time limit is non-est and barred by limitation.
CESTAT Chennai held that site formation activity done after obtaining General Power of Attorney (GPA) but before selling the land is leviable to service tax under the category of ‘Site formation and clearance service’.
ITAT Surat held that section 147 doesn’t allow the re-assessment of an income merely because of the fact that AO has change of opinion with regard to the interpretation of law differently on the facts that were well within his knowledge even at the time of assessment.
ITAT Kolkata held that AO failed to examine the agreement as composite agreement and hence non-examination of AO with that angle has caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue and hence CIT rightly set aside the assessment order by exercising powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
