Bombay High Court held that over a span of almost two years the department has failed to respond to the application of the petitioner for provisional release of the goods. Accordingly, provisional release of goods grant due to such inaction on the part department.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the same issue/ claim which was already decided and accepted during the course of regular assessment, without bringing any new material facts on records, is not valid as per law.
ITAT Delhi held that forfeiture of share application money being forfeiture of a kind of deposits cannot be treated as revenue receipt. The same is capital in nature and hence not taxable.
Patna High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s 122 of Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act) justified as assessee defaulted in tax payment due to an excessive claim of input tax credit which was later deposited without interest due under Section 50
ITAT Bangalore held that deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act in respect of credit facilities provided by Souharda Co-operative Society to its members if requirement of mandatory maintaining of funds as per Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997 is satisfied.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) can only be made applicable against the manufacturer/service provider or the person who availed the allegedly inadmissible credit and accordingly recovery of CENVAT Credit against Input Service Distributor unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that TDS is not deductible at the time of grant of ESOP but is deductible at the time of option is exercised by employees of the assessee and shares are allotted to the employees.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act alleging non-completion of some blocks unjustified as separate building planning permission were obtained by assessee from Local Authority namely AMC for each Block as a separate housing project.
ITAT Delhi held that assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without new tangible material is unsustainable and hence the entire reassessment is null and void.
CESTAT Chennai held that where the value has already been split as per the state law and VAT has been paid on the goods component of the composite works contract, no service tax can be levied on such component again taking recourse to Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
