ITAT Chennai held that assessment of Long Term Capital Gain entirely in the hands of assessee instead of all the co-owners of the land is unsustainable in law. LTCG should be assessed in the exact proportion to the extent the land belongs to each such co-owners.
Telengana High Court held that statute has introduced limitation under section 39(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to rectify omission/ error in GSTR-1 return and accordingly assessee cannot be permitted to carry out rectification beyond the statutorily prescribed period.
ITAT Bangalore held that inspite of repeated intimation informing the amalgamation of the assessee, the assessment has been completed on a non-existing i.e. amalgamated company and therefore the the assessment order in the name of amalgamated company is treated as null and void.
ITAT Chennai held that expenditure of Bio-technology Research & Development cannot be disallowed simply on the allegation that expenditure was incurred before the commencement of a new line of business as such matching concept not application in the present case.
Supreme Court held that determination/ award of compensation for use and occupation of the premises should be at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn the rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises.
Madras High Court held that order directing forfeiture of property u/s. 7 of the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 is unsustainable as link or the nexus between the income of the detenue and the acquisition of the property is not established.
CESTAT Mumbai held that amended rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 prescribes the formula for claiming refund of service tax by the service provider. Under such amended rule in vogue, there is no requirement of satisfying the nexus between the input service and the output service and hence order rejecting refund claim for the finding on nexus is not in accordance with law.
CESTAT Chennai held that as the debit note doesnt contain the nature of taxable service provided by the other party to the appellant, such debit note cannot be considered a valid document as per Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 and hence CENVAT Credit ineligible.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of additional toll chargeable on capital goods imported by it for undertaking substantial expansion of its unit in the year 2006 as the benefit for the time was made available in the year 2008.
ITAT Surat held that the addition on account of unaccounted profit on estimation basis, in trading/ manufacturing of diamonds, restricted at 10% of the sales in view of CBDT instructions vide circular no. 2/2008 dated 22nd February 2008.
