CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation rightly invoked as non-payment of Service Tax has been detected and investigated by the Anti-evasion Unit of the Commissionerate.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable as prerequisite laid down in law for reopening of the case beyond four years is not found to be fulfilled.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order passed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act is not legal and liable to be quashed as approval given under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is granted in a mechanical manner and without application of mind.
ITAT Chennai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act sustained as no corroborative evidence produced to prove the source for the cash deposits during demonetization period.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan taken at higher rate for commercial expediency is admissible under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act correctly invoked as AO failed to examine the issue of purchase of land in the light of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) beyond time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Income Tax Act is time barred and bad in law.
ITAT Chennai held that addition u/s 69 towards unexplained money sustained on failure to explain the source of the cash deposits with necessary evidences.
Supreme Court held that as the State of Himachal Pradesh didn’t took any steps for realization of its dues, recourse to Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (HPLR Act) for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue not sustainable.
Supreme Court held that as per Rule 2A of determination of value, service tax is payable only on the service element under works contract. Hence, CENVAT Credit of only service element is available.
