ITAT Delhi held that interest income on income tax refund is chargeable at the rate of 10% as per Article 11 of India – Japan tax treaty.
ITAT Mumbai held that CPC (Centralised Processing Centre) is not authorized to carry out adjustments for disallowance of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that simply because there are coconut trees on the land it doesnot mean that agricultural operations are carried out. Accordingly, deduction claimed under section 54B on sale of the land is disallowed.
ITAT Jabalpur held that as per the sale deed what was purchased was only a plot of land for construction of residential house. However, in absence of construction of residential house thereon, exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act not admissible.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that depreciation on licenses software is allowable at the rate of 60% and not at the rate of 25% as alleged by the revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that issuance of draft assessment order along with the demand notice is in violation of provisions of section 144C of the Income Tax Act and hence bad in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that the amount spent by the assessee on clinical trials outside the approved in-house facility is eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that M/s. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not commercial organization and only organizing game of cricket. Therefore, any service rendered to BCCI-IPL by M/s. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association is not in the nature of support of business of BCCI. Accordingly, service tax demand not sustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that CCR, or the Central Excise Rules or the Act places an obligation on the buyer of the goods to investigate that whether the process undertaken by the supplier amounts to manufacture or not and determine the duty thereon.
Madras High Court held that no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the GST Act, 2017 and importantly adverse decision is taken by the respondent. Hence, impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
