ITAT Hyderabad held that receipt of more than Rs. 20,000 by way of cash without any reasonable cause is in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D duly imposed.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as Assessing Officer duly carried out all the inquiry before passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that parking charges collected for providing parking space is liable for inclusion in the value of Management, Maintenance or Repair services and accordingly, service tax is payable on the same.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee (pharmaceutical company) is not entitled for claiming deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of freebies given to the doctors.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on wrong and irrelevant facts recorded under the reasons recorded for the formation of belief of escapement of income chargeable to income tax is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rendering a decision on goods that are yet to be provisionally assessed would be a premature intervention. The possible detriment that may arise on a future date is not a grievance that should be entertained unless and until it does translate as one upon occurrence of import or export of goods.
Telangana High Court has held that notices and proceedings initiated against the amalgamated Company (i.e. non-existing company) deserves to be set aside/quashed. Accordingly, entire proceedings held as bad-in-law.
Held that the amounts received for the use of transponder of tele-communication service charges are not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and also under Article 12(8) of Indo Netherland DTAA.
ITAT Jaipur restored the matter back to CIT(E) as application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act was rejected solely due to alleged non-genuineness of the activities as charitable nature of activities of assessee not disputed.
Supreme Court held that tax/fee/ charge on erection of mobile towers is not upon the owner of the land and building but on the person who is responsible for erecting of the mobile tower on the land and building and is thus using the land or building for erection of the mobile tower.
