CESTAT Ahmedabad held that all the services provided in relation to power transmission is exempted from service tax as per notification 45/2010-ST.
Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 held that both the accused i.e. Sanjay Raut and Pravin Raut has been arrested illegally as both the accused have satisfied twin conditions under section 45(1)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that onus is on the assessee to establish that the specified expenditure incurred was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, disallowance of expenditure justified in absence of such establishment.
ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure incurred on such foreign travel cannot be disallowed on the reason that it was a pleasure tour and not meant for the purpose of business, as assessee furnished all the relevant details with supporting evidences together with the purpose of foreign travel.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that rejection of transaction value is unjustified as department has failed to produce any evidence reflecting that the relationship between the parties has influenced the price.
ITAT Chandigarh held that denial of cross-examination, based on which addition on account of unrecorded sales was confirmed, demolishes the very foundation of making addition and hence such addition is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Kolkata has held that Custom Broker License suspended under Regulation 16(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 for around a month is directed to be lifted as necessary inquiry should have completed during the said suspension time.
Gujarat High Court held that amount invested in the pension policy is not claimed as relief under section 80CCC(1) and hence policy surrender value thereon is not taxabie under section 80CCC(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that TPO unreasonably rejected the CUP method consistently followed by the assessee to bench mark international transaction with its Associated Enterprise as there was no change in the facts and circumstance of the case for the impugned Assessment Year.
ITAT Gauhati held that provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act cannot apply since the liability is still payable to sundry creditor and had not been written off in the books of account and there is no evidence to indicate that said liabilities had ceased to exist.
