ITAT Indore held that excess stock was not kept separately and was part of business stock cannot be treated as deemed income u/s 69 or 69B of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable on the surrendered income on account of excess stock found during the course of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that tax authorities cannot assessee share premium amount under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition made u/s 68 is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from disaster recovery playout services and disaster recovery up-linking services are not in the nature of Fee for Technical Service (FTS) as envisaged under Article 12(4)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under Section 29A(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act), there is no requirement that consent of the parties has to be expressed and that too, in writing for extending the arbitral period.
Bombay High Court granted the stay on customs demand on account of pending of the review petition before the Supreme Court in the case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd.
Commissioner of Central Tax Vs MeritTrac Services Private Limited (CESTAT Bangalore) CESTAT Bangalore held that activity of carrying out the exams for university cannot be construed as rendering of ‘Management or Business Service’ to the universities without the assessee’s involvement in the execution of the conduct of the examination. Facts- The respondent are engaged in […]
Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition stating that writ petition assailing initiation of proceedings under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is not maintainable as aggrieved party has a remedy of an appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
CESTAT Chennai held that sale of ticket for cricket tournament cannot be considered as an exempted service and therefore no Service Tax is required to be reversed in terms of Rule 6(3) (i) CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA(3) TPO order should be passed before 60 days prior to the date prescribed u/s 153 of the Act. Accordingly, in present case, TPO order passed on 30/01/2015 instead of 29/01/2015 is non-est and liable to be quashed as being barred by limitation.
Gujarat High Court held that benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) duly available as tax was quantified on or before 30.06.2019. In fact, tax liability was duly discharged by the petitioner and communicated to the department vide letter dated 21.05.2019.
