Telangana High Court held that once sanction has been given to a particular authority, i.e., the Deputy Director of Income Tax, the prosecution has to be launched by him alone and not by the Assistant Director of Income Tax. Thus, the authority which has initiated the prosecution must have sanction of law. Otherwise, it amounts to illegal action.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act does not authorise the Revenue to compute the notional interest. Accordingly, addition of notional interest deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that Retail Sale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of ‘import of men’s wear for resale’ between Celio Future Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and its associated enterprises.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the complainant miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of final products cleared without payment of duty and which is further utilized for manufacture of final products on which duty is paid is allowable.
ITAT Delhi held that rejection of valuation merely on the ground that on the date of issue of shares, DCF method was not there in Rule 11UA of the ITAT Rules is unjustified in as much as AO failed to demonstrate that methodology adopted by the assessee was not correct.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in case of production of a new retail sale price, duty is to be calculated on pro-rata basis, in the present case only four days, when the production has taken place.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in case of production of a new retail sale price, duty is to be calculated on pro-rata basis, in the present case only four days, when the production has taken place.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the charges paid for services rendered by the FTOs (i.e. Foreign Telecommunication Operators) cannot be taxed under head ‘telecommunication services’. Accordingly, demand set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that maintenance charges received from corporate members is exempt on principle of mutuality. The said receipt doesn’t become taxable merely because it was subjected to deduction of tax at source.
