ITAT Chennai held that interest income received from investment in Erode District Central Co-operative Bank, which is governed by Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Allahabad High Court held that for imposition of penalty under section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] intention to evade payment of tax is a pre-requisite. No penalty u/s 129(3) as there was no intent on part of petitioner to evade tax.
Madras High Court held that the product Aluminium Foil Container is classifiable under 7615 with GST 12%. Accordingly, demand of GST claiming that product is classifiable under 7067 @18% tax is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that demand to be unsustainable as even though belatedly the appellant has availed option provided under rule 6 and reversed the relevant cenvat credit along with interest. Concluded that even post-clearance compliance of stipulations precluded denial of an entitlement available otherwise.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment without any link between the tangible material and formation of belief of AO that income has escaped assessment is unsustainable and bad-in-law and hence liable to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court held that GST is not chargeable on premium and lease rent on plots allotted to hospital against lease granted for more than 30 years. Accordingly, communication demanding deposit of GST liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that valuation of fuel oil and diesel oil used during coastal run of the vessel is to be done as per the ‘Residual Method’ prescribed under rule 9(1) of the Valuation Rules.
ITAT Kolkata held that as assessee has provided the explanation with documentary evidence and such documents have not been held as false either by AO during assessment proceedings or during penalty proceedings. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) not leviable.
Delhi High Court held that refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) in respect of telecommunication services rendered to inbound subscribers of Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) granted.
Kerala High Court held that the Principal Commissioner while considering application u/s. 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act should solely assessee the condonation in preferring the refund application. The Principal Commissioner shouldn’t assessee merit of the refund claim.
