CESTAT Delhi held that assisting the registration of the vehicles with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) tax cannot be considered a declared service under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, demand of the service tax set aside.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that mere transfer of right to use any goods or even transfer of goods to be used in works or not shall not be a ‘sale’ unless it is supported by consideration.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the deposit insurance activity of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai (DICGC) falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under “General Insurance Business”.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-valuation of goods without first rejecting the transaction value of the goods is not in accordance with law. Show cause notice without proposal of rejection of transaction value or demanding differential duty is both speculative and presumptive.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that department cannot pass order under section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) without recording of proper reasons. Accordingly, the order attaching the accounts is set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that foreign tax credit duly available even if form no. 67 is filed along with the revised return as the form is filed before the completion of the assessment.
ITAT Chennai held that deduction towards purchase of air conditioner, furnishing of curtains, light fittings is allowable as cost of improvement while computing capital gains.
ITAT Mumbai held that AO took the plausible view of granting the benefit of mutuality after due application of mind. Accordingly, revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked merely because PCIT may entertain a different view in the matter.
ITAT Delhi held that proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act gets applicable as reopening of assessment is initiated after four years of original assessment. Accordingly, re-opening of assessment based on mere change of opinion is unsustainable.
Supreme Court held that Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil being manufactured and marked as Homeopathy medicine is classifiable under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and cannot be branded as a cosmetic.
