CESTAT Kolkata held that confirmation of demand of duty unjustified if in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no actual loss has been caused to the revenue. Thus, duty demand set aside in absence of any loss of revenue.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that enhancement of value unsustainable as approximately same price for various other consignments imported at same time and have same quantity were accepted by the department.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the place of provision of the service of transportation of goods by air/sea from a place in India to a place outside India, will be a place outside the taxable territory. Thus, such service being within the purview of Export of Service Rules will be outside the service tax net.
CESTAT Kolkata held that composite contract involving transportation of goods and loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, etc. will be treated as a contract for transportation only as the other services are naturally bundled together with the principal service of transportation. Accordingly, service tax leviable under GTA service and not under cargo handling service.
CESTAT Allahabad held that charge of clandestine removal cannot be imputed in absence of any evidence or in absence of an independent investigation. Accordingly, demand unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that corpus donations are capital in nature and hence cannot be added to the income of the assessee and hence not taxable.
ITAT Bangalore held that the payments made to gateway providers are not brokerage and TDS u/s. 194H of the Income Tax Act is not liable to be deducted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating share application money from undisclosed source unsustainable as burden duly discharged by filing confirmation, affidavit, copy of income tax return and bank statement of respective parties.
Uttarakhand High Court held that issuance of notice to the Transferor Company (i.e. non-existent entity) and order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act against the non-existent entity is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per rule 4(b)(iii) of the point of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, in case payment is received before change in effective rate of tax and invoice is issued after change in effective rate of tax, then, point of taxation will be date of payment. Hence, demand set aside on advance receipt.
