Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition in the matter of cancellation of GST registration on account of non-filing of GST return as GST Tribunal has not been constituted.
ITAT Cochin held that levy of late fee under section 234E for processing for period prior to 1st June 2015 is unsustainable and bad-in-law.
ITAT Chennai held that even though assessee has not invested sale proceeds in Capital Gain Account Scheme, but complied with the conditions u/s. 54F(1) of the Act by purchasing an independent house. Deduction u/s 54F allowed as provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally.
Orissa High Court held that State of Odisha was deprived of recovering 2/3rd of tax due by virtue of interim order of the Supreme Court of India, accordingly, petitioner is required to compensate the State of Odisha by making payment towards interest in the interest of justice and equity.
ITAT Delhi held that when the transaction between the assessee and its Indian AE is found to be at arm’s length, no further attribution of profit can be made to the dependent agent PE in India.
CESTAT Kolkata held that no service tax is leviable on Banking and Financial Institution Services prior to 16.07.2001. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the agreements entered by the assessee with their clients prior to 16.07.2001.
Gujarat High Court held that as per provisions of section 276-C prosecution can be launched only if there is willful admits to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under the Income Tax Act. Prosecution in absence of willful admits is unsustainable
Supreme Court held that forfeiture of property in exercise of power under section 7 of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 justifiable in absence of proper explanation as to the source of acquisition and as majority of investment remains unexplained.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received not being in the nature of royalty under Article 12(3) of the treaty cannot be brought to tax in India in absence of a Permanent Establishment.
CESTAT Delhi held that invocation of extended period of limitation unsustainable as several rounds of audit was conducted and show cause notice for previous period on the same issued was already issued. Hence, department was fully aware of the issue in the question.
