ITAT Chennai held that payment of rental or ocean freight for ships is covered by Article 8 of India-Korea DTAA. Accordingly, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS and therefore, disallowance invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment order framed in the name of a non-existing entity is non-est and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, initiation of proceedings u/s 263 based on such assessment order is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that in view of provision of 47(v) of the Act the transaction of transfer of land from subsidiary to holding company is not covered u/s. 45 of the Act. Accordingly, when the transaction does not falls within ambit of section 45, then any claim of long term capital loss/profit cannot be allowed.
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 73 doesnot apply in view of specific exclusions of the arbitrage/jobbing transactions from the purview of speculative transaction u/s 43(5) of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Kolkata held that denial of credit of service tax stating that coal and iron ore mines situated away from the factory is unsustainable as no material has been placed on record by the revenue to substantiate that the mines were owned by separate entities.
Bombay High Court held that provisional attachment under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ceases to exist after a period of one year.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained jewellery unsustainable as panchnama clearly mentions the fact that ownership of jewellery belongs to various people.
Calcutta High Court held that though the official liquidator is now in-charge of the affairs of the company, the petitioners being the erstwhile directors are to assist the official liquidator in affairs of the company even after winding up.
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.
