ITAT Lucknow held that benefit of exemption cannot be disallowed merely because the same was claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act instead of claiming u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act. Such mistake is inadvertent and typographical mistake.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that before 01.04.2011 it was not open to the appellants to avail CENVAT credit paid on input services and utilized for provision of exempted services or trading goods.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable when income is assessed on estimate basis and accordingly additions are made therein on estimate basis.
ITAT Surat held that fair market value (FMV) by the registered valuers is determined after taking into account all the relevant factors like size, shape, situation, location, utility, future potentiality, etc. accordingly, the same cannot be ignore.
Jharkhand High Court held that it is mandatory to record reasons for initiation of proceedings under Section 35(7) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act (JVAT Act). Non-recording of the same makes the proceedings untenable in law.
Madras High Court held that non-submission of certified copy of order within a period of 7 days as stipulated under Rule 108(3) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (TNGST Act) is only a technical defect.
Bombay High Court held that identify the nature of the goods as to whether they are finished or semi finished based on the entries in the RG-1 register needs reconsideration by the Appellate Tribunal.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on some dummy name without incriminating material reflecting name of the assessee is unjustified.
CESTAT Delhi held that Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) is not liable to pay service tax on their statutory activities performed in terms of ‘The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952’ (EPM & MP Act, 1952).
ITAT Delhi held that loss claimed arising out of the sham transaction between two associated enterprises (AE) is disallowed.
