CESTAT Chennai held that the sharing services of their corporate staff with the group of companies is covered by the definition of ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency’ as defined in Section 65(105)(k) of FA, 1994 read with section 65(68) ibid.
ITAT Delhi held that amounts paid by resident Indian to nonresident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty and hence not taxable in India. Hence, TDS u/s. 195 not deductible.
CESTAT Mumbai held that pressmud, bagasse, boiler ash and sludge, generated during the manufacturing of sugar/molasses, are waste or byproduct and therefore Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) shall have no application.
ITAT Delhi held that enhancement by CIT(A) without providing reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed enhancement to the Assessee is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that entire demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable as show cause notice was issued after more than two years of the facts coming to the knowledge of the department.
Gujarat High Court held that as per provisions of section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act, 2017], it is mandatory to pay interest in case of delayed refund. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed refund.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as identity of loan creditor proved along with creditworthiness of the transaction.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is made in respect of expenses attributable to exempt income and not the taxable income. Further, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act should not exceed the exempt income of that year.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that grant received under Sampoorna Gramin Swarojgar Yogna (SGSY) from Government of Gujarat and interest earned on such grant cannot be treated as revenue receipt. Accordingly, the same is not liable to be taxed.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand invoking extended period cannot be sustained on account of revenue-neutrality as duty charged by Unit-I would be taken as cenvat credit by Unit-II.
