Delhi High Court held that Delhi Gymkhana Club is exigible to Luxury tax on activity of providing residential accommodation by a hotelier for monetary consideration under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996.
CESTAT Allahabad held that in case of foreign export proceeds, the Indian Exporters are not the recipient of services from the Foreign Bank/ intermediary bank. Accordingly, demand of service tax as service recipient on bank charges thereon unjustified.
ITAT Kolkata held that revision of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) unsustainable as levy of interest u/s. 115P of the Income Tax Act for short payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) u/s. 115-O of the Income Tax Act, which comes under a separate Chapter, was not part of assessment order.
CESTAT Delhi held that area based exemption in terms of Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 available as manufacture of High Security Registration Plates is concluded in Himachal Pradesh only.
Kerala High Court held that denial of input tax credit merely on the ground of difference between Form GSTR -2A and Form GSTR-3B for tax period 2017-2018 unsustainable. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority to reconsider claim of ITC irrespective of Form GSTR 2A
Delhi High Court held that while determining compensation for injuries suffered in the road accident only documentary evidence in form of Income Tax Return in support of the claim of income is sufficient.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that mere suppression of facts is not enough for invoking extended period of limitation. There must be a deliberate and wilful attempt on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as based merely on the basis of statement of Director of the Vendor Company without any additional corroborative evidence.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable as demand is based on the records of the assessee or other records which DGCEI could obtain through income tax department. Scrutiny of such records should have been done within time limit.
CESTAT Kolkata held that impugned gold cannot be seized u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it is a case of town seizure and revenue has failed to prove that gold in question is smuggled one. Accordingly, gold not liable for confiscation.
