Madhya Pradesh High Court held that FIR, registering offence u/s. 304-A, 34 of the IPC, against managing director of the company on account of failure in putting safety signs on either side of culvert so as to prevent any accident of road user justifiable.
CESTAT Delhi held that export of Triethanolamine, which is one of the Specialised Chemicals, Organisms, Machinery, Equipment and Technology (SCOMET) items, without the required authorization is a serious violation. Hence penalty imposed.
Calcutta High Court held that payment made during the course of search cannot be said to be voluntary payment. Such payment made cannot be retained by the department as acknowledgment in GST DRC-04 not given.
Jharkhand High Court held that the delay in filing the appeal without any condonation of delay application is a defective one and hence appeals dismissed as grossly barred by limitation.
Bombay High Court held that upto 1 April, 2005, the expression ‘built up area’ would exclude the balcony area and are not to be included while computing the built up area of the residential units, in housing project eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act.
Petitioner states that mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 as amended by notification No.13/2013 provides for exemption in case of services provided by a training partner approved by the National Skill Development Corporation or Sector Skill Council.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards on-money sale amount based on the third-party statement without any cogent positive evidence to sustain addition is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act unjustified as revenue failed to prove that cash sales are fictitious/ bogus.
Calcutta High Court held that coal cutting or mineral extraction and lifting them up to the pithead are essential integral processes and are part of mining operations and hence taxable only from 01.06.2007. No service tax is leviable on such activities prior to the said date.
ITAT Delhi held that when shares are held as investments, there will be no business income and accordingly provisions of section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked.
