CESTAT Chennai held that the amount of damages received for tolerating the breach of contract by contractors and sub-contractors is not consideration. Any amount, which is not a consideration for provision of service, cannot be subjected to service tax.
ITAT Bangalore held that the compensation paid for delay in handing over of possession of the property is the liability that arose in the course of business of assessee and hence allowable as business expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Indian Subsidiary operating in an independent manner doesn’t constitute as a “Permanent Establishment” in India and hence income of the assessee is not allowable to be taxed in India.
Allahabad High Court held that the pardon granted under Section 306 Cr.P.C. to a person in a scheduled offence would not ipso facto result in his acquittal in the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
ITAT Jaipur held that interest paid on TDS is compensatory in nature and is a business expenditure allowable u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in absence of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee.
ITAT Hyderabad held that donations given for compliance with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) u/s. 135 of Companies Act to institutions mentioned in Section 80G are qualified for deduction u/s. 80G of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere non-disclosure of the receipts in the service tax return would not mean that there was an intent to evade payment of service tax. Hence, demand invoking extended period of limitation unsustainable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that amendment to provisions of section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act is retrospective in nature and hence the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Authority on the date of agreement has to be taken for the purpose of full value of the consideration.
Madras High Court held that once the purchaser has purchased the property even after knowing about the encumbrances then it is his obligation to discharge the encumbrances. The Bank cannot file a writ petition so as to protect the interest of the third party, who has purchased the property knowing the fact that there are other encumbrances.
