Delhi High Court held that notification dated 05.04.2021 cannot be said as void in law as time for which the interim orders were operable has to be excluded from the timeframe provided in Rule 18 of of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of AntiDumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (AAD Rules).
ITAT Chennai held that rejection of special audit report of the special auditor appointed in terms of section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act on flimsy grounds without any finding as to how observation of the special auditor is incorrect.
CESTAT Kolkata held that activity undertaken by the appellant as calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers, does not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence. Hence, demand unsustained.
CESTAT Kolkata held that activity undertaken by the appellant as calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers, does not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence. Hence, demand unsustained.
ITAT Delhi held that addition merely on the sole basis that there was mismatch between TDS certificate/26AS and the turnover/receipts shown by the assessee in its P&L account unsustainable as difference successfully established.
Orissa High Court held that 150 HP Fully Automatic ATS (Auto-Transformer Starter) Control Panel, Motor Starter Panel Board and other Control Panel is comprehended in the term “accessories” under OVAT Act which attracts a rate of tax @ 4% for the tax periods prior to 01.04.2012 and @5% for the tax periods commencing from 01.04.2012 to the periods of assessment.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act towards investment made out of interest free own funds available with the assessee is unjustifiable and hence deleted.
ITAT Raipur held that invocation of section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified as AO passed the order without making any enquiry or verification and hence such order passed is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
CESTAT Mumbai held that service tax paid on services received from overseas service providers in foreign countries duly refundable as the same cannot be fastened with the liability of service tax as a ‘deemed service provider’ in India.
ITAT Raipur held that once it is established that the commission income were receivable, the said commission income is liable to be brought to tax in the year in which the same has been accured.
