ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unsecured loan under section 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to discharge the primary onus and burden of proof of providing genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of creditors to the satisfaction of the A.O.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act towards share application money unsustainable since they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that suspension of Customs Broker Licence is against the principles of natural justice as Managing Director being in the judicial custody couldn’t have any opportunity to submit his explanation.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that there is no requirement of the actual use of inputs and quantities of imported goods for claiming DFIA i.e. Duty-Free Import Authorization benefit.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the creditors proved.
ITAT Mumbai held that the issue of allowance of sales promotion expenses (including freebies) in the hands of Appellant was debatable and it cannot be said that allowance of deduction of sales promotion expenses by AO resulting in a mistake apparent on record. Thus, in absence of mistake apparent on record, order passed u/s 154 liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that provision of management support services to various hotels in India doesn’t come under Article 12(4) of India -Singapore DTAA. Accordingly, addition unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of exemption Notification no. 102/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009 for capital goods imported under Zero Duty Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme available as there is no simultaneous availment of benefit under Status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS).
ITAT Chennai held that once the assessee has discharged its primary onus of fulfilling the three ingredients of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the further onus was on revenue to make further enquiry. However, since the onus lying on the revenue was not discharged, addition u/s 68 couldn’t be sustained.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Medicament Supplies to Government Hospitals and Institutional Buyers shall be valued in terms of Section 4 and not Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
