CESTAT Delhi held that Customs Broker failed to verify the correctness of the documents, violated the obligation as a custom broker under CBLR, 2013, accordingly, revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit justified.
Held that education cess paid by the respondent-assessee is not allowable as an expenditure under Section 37 read with 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that property sold is to be taxed under Capital gain as the property was held for considerable longer period of time and assessee is not engaged into systemic real estate business activity.
Bombay High Court held that denial of cenvat credit to the telecom communication companies on towers used to rendering telecommunication service is sustained. However, duty demand of ineligible cenvat credit issued beyond the period of limitation as the issue was a debatable issue.
Gujarat High Court held that interest under section 234B(2A) of the Income Tax Act is payable only on the balance additional tax payable after allowing credit of prepaid tax.
Bombay High Court held that order of Tribunal directed the designated authority to calculate the tax amount applying the ratio of Mohommad Haji Adam & Co case. Designated authority had only to calculate the disputed tax by giving effect to the orders of the Tribunal. Order of Tribunal was not directing fresh examination on any issue.
ITAT Mumbai held that there is no element of technical knowledge, experience, skill knowhow or process in the rendering of brokerage services. Therefore, the payment of brokerage by the assessee to the brokers not being covered as FTS-FIS is not taxable in India either pursuant to Sec. 9(1)(vii)
Delhi High Court held that extended service tax demand invoking proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act would be applicable on account of mis-statement or suppression of facts only if the same was deliberate and for the purposes of evading payment of duty.
NCLAT Delhi held that the dues of income tax department are Government dues and they are secured creditors.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment in absence of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly the material facts and also in absence of any tangible material is unjustifiable.
