ITAT Mumbai held that profit before depreciation (PBDIT) is to be considered as Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for transfer pricing analysis for benchmarking the international transaction.
CESTAT Chennai held that branch office located in USA rendered the ‘onsite support service’ to its associated enterprise (AE) situated outside India and hence the same is not exigible to tax under the Finance Act, 1994 and accordingly all charges under the Finance Act are set aside.
Supreme Court held that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail. Accordingly, Taxation Entry No.61 is relatable to ‘starch’ of any kind whereas Exemption Entry No.8 relates to products of ‘millet’. Hence, maize starch is covered by taxation entry and not by exemption entry.
Bombay High Court held that that since revenue authorities have not registered their claim/attachment order with CERSAI, they cannot claim priority over dues of the Government.
Bombay High Court held that since the Assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment in India, income earned by it as business profit would not be taxable in India by virtue of the provisions of Article 7 of the India-Malaysia DTAA.
Delhi High Court held that subsidy received from Government of Goa for establishing an industrial unit in a backward area is capital receipt. Further, as subsidy was not intended to meet part of cost of assets, no adjustment against cost of asset could be ordered.
CESTAT Chennai held that as Chapter Heading 3302 covers both natural and/or synthetic mixtures of odoriferous substances, ‘tomato dry flavour’ is correctly classifiable under CTH 3302 10 10 instead of 2106 90 60.
ITAT Chennai held that in case of banking companies were shares & securities are held as stock in trade, dividend income is considered as business income, and consequently, provisions of Sec.14A of the Act, cannot be applied.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services related to construction of roads etc. the Government authorities/ agencies are covered under Mega Exemption of Service Tax notification no. 25/2012-ST and hence demand unsustainable.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that the services provided to fulfil warranty obligation would be eligible as input services being a service in relation to manufacture. Further, also the warranty charges were included in the assessable value of goods sold to the customers.
