ITAT Delhi held that that expenditure incurred between setting up and commencement of business could not have been capitalized and was to be allowed as business expenditure.
ITAT Pune held that as the assessee failed to establish why the shops were sold at loss to the partners and interest persons, principle of fraud squarely gets applicable. Accordingly, disallowance of loss duly justified.
Gujarat High Court held that in the case of wrongful availment of input tax credit matter under GST the proceeding for adjudication is commenced as show case notice is issued. Hence, court directed authorities to complete the adjudication proceedings in time-bound manner and completion of the proceedings, provisional attachment will have its own fate.
CESTAT Delhi held that when a government company is involved there will be a rebuttable presumption regarding nonexistence of any of the ingredients mentioned in the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Accordingly, extended period of limitation couldn’t be invoked.
CESTAT Delhi held that as electricity is not excisable goods under section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hence rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR) would not be applicable.
ITAT Chennai held that even though certificate in Form no. 10CCB was not filed along with return of income, but same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, hence the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that if tax is payable under RCM, however, service provider has duly collected the service tax and deposited the same to the Government. Demanding service tax under RCM from the service receiver will amount to double taxation and hence such demand not sustainable.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act merely based on the SMS or WhatsApp messages without any corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that Clad with compatible non-clad aluminium foil didn’t had any commercial supplies in the domestic industry during the period of investigation and hence anti-dumping duty on the same is not leviable.
Delhi High Court held that revenue should adjudicate show cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable time. Accordingly, continuation of proceedings for adjudication after a lapse of almost 13 years impermissible.
