CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is leviable on services provided by hotels and restaurant in relation to letting out of halls or rooms for organizing any official, social or business function under ‘mandap keeper’ service.
CESTAT Chennai held that any other amount, other than gross amount charged for providing taxable service, which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such ‘taxable service’.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of short term capital loss incurred on sale of shares by mechanically applying the information received from investigation wing is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act available even if capital gain is invested in purchasing more than one residential houses within stipulated time limit.
Asuda Holdings Private Limited Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that there is a clear diversion of funds for non-business purpose as funds are borrowed @18% and lended the same to one of its directors at 13.5%. Accordingly, disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) sustained. Facts- AO observed that assessee has taken loan from M/s. Elevators […]
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 68 unsustainable as genuineness of transaction routed through banking channel cannot be doubted on the basis of surmises and conjectures based on suspicion and doubts.
ITAT Raipur held that addition as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in as much as the assessee company has duly discharged the onus of proving the identity and creditworthiness of the investor company.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is entitled to claim of unabsorbed brought-forward depreciation to be set off against income from other sources as available during the year.
ITAT Delhi held that the Force of Attraction Rule doesn’t apply unless there is even a remote link between the activities of other projects is established with the PE.
CESTAT Kolkata held that customs broker cannot be alleged to have violated Regulation 10(n) for non-existence of the exporter at the address. Customs Broker is no required to carry out physical verification of the address of the exporter to met his obligation under Regulation 10(n).
