CESTAT Chennai held that refund under section 11B duly available as there can be no levy of service tax on the activity of transportation of gas up to delivery point at customer’s premises as it pertains to self-service.
Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner and stated that the case is not fit for exercising discretionary power under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the matter of dealing with prohibited drugs.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the discount/ commission/incentives given for sale of cars cannot be treated as compensation received by the appellant for any services provided to the car manufacturer.
ITAT Surat held that the delay in filing appeal before ld CIT(A)/ NFAC is not deliberate or intentional or gross negligence on part of assessee and hence the same is condoned.
ITAT Pune discussed the cost of acquisition of two plots allotted against compulsory acquisition of land. Matter remanded in absence of availability of figures of fair market value of two plots which is cost of acquisition in second transaction.
ITAT Delhi held that order of the ld. PCIT passed in haste without verification of factual material, as amount alleged was in Crores as against actual transactions in Lakhs, is unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that strategic investments not yielding any exempt income during the year under consideration, the same cannot form part of the average value of investment for computing disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Chandigarh held that mere non-furnishing of copy of registration u/s 12A cannot be held as a valid and justifiable reason for denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act where such registration continues to exist and the assessee trust duly stand registered u/s 12A for the year under consideration.
ITAT Delhi held that as per Article 8 of India–Singapore DTAA receipts from operation of ships and aircrafts in international traffic is taxable in the country of residence of the recipient. Therefore, amounts received by the assessee from operation of ships in international traffic would be exempt.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that building constructed by the Appellant is not commercial and industrial construction, therefore does not fall under the category of taxable services, as the same is not used for commercial and industry but it is used for providing education.
