Gujarat High Court held that when the goods are perishable in nature, the authorities should act with greater swiftness to proceed with the adjudicatory mechanism and take a final decision. Accordingly, conditional provisional release of goods granted.
Patna High Court held that the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, for he cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of roaming charges paid/ payable to other telecom operations u/s. 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 194J justified as national roaming process essentially involves decisive human intervention.
ITAT Delhi held that eligible deduction under section 11 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of technicalities.
ITAT Delhi held that deriving Arm’s Length Price without resorting to any method prescribed as per the Income Tax Rules is unjustifiable. Accordingly, TPO/ AO directed to determine Arm’s Length Price.
Bombay High Court held that notice not setting out the material that provided the basis for assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court held that filing of multiple patent claims in respect of the same invention amounts to evergreening or layering of patent protection, which is impermissible under the Indian Patent Law.
Orissa High Court held that treatment of supply of ballast and chips and deduction of incidental charges from gross turnover is decided in favour of assessee in D.K. Construction case i.e. supply subject to 4% tax, accordingly, Assessing Authority directed to re-compute the tax liability based on observation in D.K. Construction case.
Supreme Court held that the annual increment to a government servant which he has earned for the services he has rendered over a specified period subject to his good behavior cannot be denied merely because of his retirement on the very next day.
Madras High Court held that export of goods is not a condition precedent or sine qua non to qualify as a Zero Rate sale as long as the sale falls within clause(ii) of Section 18 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (TNVAT).
