Held that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to follow the requirement of Section 9D of the Act regarding examination in chief of witness, therefore demand of service tax on the basis of statements of persons cannot be sustainable.
Held that deduction from income claimed for payment made to a retired partners allowable as it amount to a diversion of income at source by overriding title.
Held that expenditure incurred in executing the project is an intangible asset which is eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act
Held that the assessee was not carrying on any share trading business, and it was the benami business of other assessee. Accordingly, denial of the claim of loss justified.
Held that pension is deferred salary, akin to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The right to pension is a constitutional right.
Held that right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant cannot be denied to an accused for his failure to deposit interim compensation.
Held that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. The principle remains the same even if the case of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power u/s 127.
Held that insurance company is not required to deduct TDS on interest on compensation till 01.06.2015. However, after 01.06.2015, TDS is deductible if interest exceeds Rs. 50,000 per claimant per financial year.
Held that certain information sought by petitioner was favoured to be furnished in time bound way, respondent couldn’t close the appeal of petitioner leaving culpable delay to go with impunity. Penalty u/s 20 of RTI imposed for delay for furnishing information.
Held that department failed to brought on record independent evidence showing that the price of imported goods were over-valued. Accordingly, in the absence of contemporaneous imports, the transaction value cannot be discarded.
