ITAT Chennai held that deduction of TDS vis-à-vis amortization of discount on debentures needs fresh adjudication in the light of additional evidences filed by the revenue. Accordingly, matter restore back.
CESTAT Delhi held that Cenvat Credit in respect of capital goods parts/spares/components received in the factory of the manufacturer and used in manufacture of dutiable final product is duly eligible.
ITAT Pune held that imposition of penalty under section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb within which the penalty is imposed is unsustainable. Failure of AO to quote any of the six sub-limbs as prescribed u/s 270A(9) makes imposition of penalty unsustainable
ITAT Delhi held that revised return cannot be filed to cover up deliberate omission etc. in the original return. Thus, claim of the Assessee towards incurring impugned capital loss and carryforward thereof vide the revised return is unsustainable.
ITAT Bangalore Held that not every deposit during the demonetization period would fall under category of unaccounted cash. However the burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash. Matter remanded for re-verification.
CESTAT Mumbai held that waste or rubbish, which is thrown up in the course of manufacture, cannot be said to be a produce of manufacture and cannot be said to be exigible to excise duty. Hence, sale of Ferric Oxide which emerged through chemical reaction of Waste Pickle Liquor is not liable to any duty.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee being a corporate assessee and subjected to statutory audits cannot be done in a light manner. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO for re-adjudication.
ITAT Panaji held that payment of interest on loan taken for paying compensation to the family members of the assessee pursuant to an arbitral award on family settlement has nothing to do with LTCG on sale of the said capital asset. Accordingly, payment of such interest cannot be claimed as deduction u/s 48.
CESTAT Kolkata held that there was no proposal to demand service tax under ‘Cargo Handling Service’ in the Notice, however, in the impugned order the adjudicating authority classified the services under ‘Cargo Handling Service’. Hence, adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the scope of the Notice, which is legally not sustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition of notional interest on advances to related parties (i.e. the directors and sister concern/related parties) unsustainable as the assessee has been able to substantiate availability of sufficient interest free funds.
