CESTAT Kolkata held that notification no. 41/2012-ST grants refund of service tax paid on the taxable services used for export of goods. The said refund includes refund of Swachh Bharat Cess (SBC) and Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) too.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition of amount received as advances as deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as assessee firm is neither registered shareholder nor beneficial shareholder. Concluded that deemed dividend is taxable only in the hands of the shareholder.
As per Revised Pension Rules, 1980, family pension is not admissible to the second wife as marrying another wife, (when one wife is living) without obtaining the approval of Government is contrary to Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In absence of Government approval, death benefit not entitled to second wife.
ITAT Delhi held that passing of final assessment order without complying with the terms of section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is untenable in law.
Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition as provisional attachment made u/s 24(4)(b)(i) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 in respect of the properties of the petitioner was lifted.
Gujarat High Court held that Challenge to notice issued under section 154 of the Income Tax Act is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Surat held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unjustified as creditworthiness of the loan giver established and transaction undertaken through banking channel.
ITAT Delhi held that income from sale of shares/securities/PMS/Mutual Funds, etc. which were held as investment and not as stock-in-trade is taxable under the head capital gains and not under the head business income.
ITAT Surat held that invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as order passed by AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
ITAT Chennai held that delay of 6 to 9 years in filing of an appeal against levy of late fees u/s 234 with a plea that they were waiting for outcome of judicial decisions not condoned.
