ITAT Hyderabad held that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration of property is different, value adopted by stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement has to be taken for purposes of computing full value of consideration of such transfer.
CESTAT Delhi held that demand of service tax under rule 6(7) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 by adding the amount of fuel surcharge to the air fare for the purpose of determining the basic fare unsustainable as commission was paid on air fare only and not on air fare plus fuel surcharge.
ITAT Mumbai held that Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of guarantee commission was determined at the rate of 0.3523% instead of 1.25%.
CESTAT Chennai held that duty exemption available to all items of machinery, including instruments, apparatus and appliances, auxiliary equipment and their component parts required for setting up of water treatment plants. Accordingly, duty paid under protest is required to be refunded back.
ITAT Mumbai held that unsold flats which are in stock in trade should be assessed under the head “business income” and there is no justification in estimating the rental value from those flats and notionally computing annual letting value under section 263 of the Act.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that service of laying of pipeline for Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board (GWSSB) is not falling under the service of industrial or commercial construction service.
ITAT Pune held that initiation of revisionary proceedings under section 263, based only on the proposal sent by AO for making revision, lacked jurisdiction and hence revisionary proceedings liable to be set aside.
Gujarat High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of any material to establish the concealing of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars unsustainable-in-law.
ITAT Chennai held that addition u/s. 2(22)(e) towards amount received by shareholder company treating debit balance as deemed dividend unsustainable as debit balance was only because of an inadvertent error and the same was squared off within short period.
Bombay High Court held that assessment order passed by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) two years after the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions, is time barred and cannot be sustained.
