The appellant is engaged in providing construction of commercial or industrial building services. It claims to have discharged service tax on this service. It is also in receipt of legal and professional services, and works contract service which are chargeable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-determining the value under residual provisions of rule 9 of the Customs Valuation rules without rejecting the transaction value is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as evidence under section 138B of the Customs Act. Accordingly, demand based on the statement recorded cannot be sustained. Thus, order set aside and appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that all the conditions of slump sale as provided under section 2(42C) of the Income Tax Act read with section 50B of the Act is satisfied. Accordingly, benefit of section 50B granted and AO directed to compute the business income accordingly.
Madras High Court held that in terms of section 129(2)(c) of Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDRS], department empowered to withdrawn the benefit as in case of ‘voluntary disclosure’ the material particular furnished in the Declaration is subsequently found to be false.
Delhi High Court held that concluded assessments cannot be reopened merely based on suspicion. Accordingly, reassessment quashed as there is no tangible material to form ‘reason to believe’ that income has escaped assessment.
Patna High Court held that service tax is leviable on centage charges received for their service charge/ technical assistance and exemption benefit under Mega Exemption Notification is not available since actual construction of roads and bridges are done by contractors.
ITAT Delhi held that offshore supply of equipment revenue couldn’t be taxed in India. Thus, once it is not assessable even under the normal provisions, section 44BBB would also not apply. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that once Cenvat Credit is availed the same cannot be disallowed later as it was held that processing of uncoated paper didn’t amount to manufacture. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
Delhi High Court upholds sentence under section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act for wilful non-payment of income tax since merely claiming financial inability, without providing any further explanation or evidence, holds no weight and is clearly untenable.
