CESTAT Delhi held that Penalty under section 114AA is imposable only if knowingly or intentionally a false declaration, statement or document is made, signed or used. As there are no evidences that appellant knew of the fraud/ forged licences, penalty u/s 114AA cannot be sustained.
ITAT Chennai held that deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act should be computed after excluding unrealized sale proceeds from export turnover as well as total turnover.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee is entitled to claim benefit of Article 13(4) of DTAA in respect of entire current year Short/Long Term Capital Gains, without setting of the Brought Forward Short/Long Term Capital Gains.
Madras High Court held that DGFT has powers to only clarify the doubts raised as to the interpretation of Policy and doesnt have powers to amend the FTP policy. Accordingly, 100% EOU eligible for benefits of availing SHIS.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary power u/s 263 cannot be invoked when the order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that AO had only recorded general satisfaction but not with reference to the accounts of the assessee and hence has not satisfied the formula contained in rule 8D in order to compute disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that sprinklers are not included in the description of goods contained at Serial No. 325 of the notification dated 28.06.2017 chargeable to 18%, whereas, serial No. 195B of the notification does not restrict the sprinklers to any category and hence benefit of lower IGST rate of 12% available to fire sprinklers.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the activities of renting of immovable property and supply of tangible goods cannot be classified under infrastructural support service and since the said services were taxable after the relevant period. Demand of service tax not sustainable for earlier period.
Kerala High Court held that as Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is included in the second schedule to RTI Act, 2005, CBI is not liable to furnish any information.
Karnataka High Court held that petitioner had made out valid and sufficient ground/cause to condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the appellate Authority. Accordingly, exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the condonation of delay was granted.
