Madras High Court held that claim of Input Tax Credit [ITC] barred by limitation in terms of section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] but within period prescribed u/s. 16(5) is duly allowable.
Calcutta High Court held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards bogus share capital and share premium duly deleted by CIT(A) since identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers alongwith genuineness of transactions duly proved.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that manufacturer of soft drinks are eligible for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchase of refrigerators, coolers and deep freezers in terms of rule 20(2) of the AP VAT Rules, 2005. Accordingly, tax revision case partly allowed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that deduction u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not admissible if the new capital asset i.e. agriculture land is purchased in the name of wife of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of assessee partly allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that consultancy services rendered by the appellant to the foreign university/foreign group entity do not fall under the category of “intermediary services” and the appellants are eligible for the benefit of „export of services”. Accordingly, appeal allowed and demand set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that issuance of show cause notice after elapsing of more than six years period from the time of exports is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Mumbai held that taxing entirety of income as consideration under ‘management, maintenance or repair service’ without disaggregating consideration among several activities is lack of wherewithal. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back.
Gauhati High Court held that in view of provisions of section 292B and 292BB of the Income Tax Act the right of assessee has been restricted to challenge the validity of notice issued by Income Tax Officer (ITO) or assessment order passed by DCIT.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee was eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80G of the Act in respect of donation made to Mukhyamantri Shree Swachchta Nidhi Gujarat, as part of its CSR initiative. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.
Delhi High Court held that issuance of notice for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty was proposed to be levied is bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
