Allahabad High Court held that GST is not chargeable on premium and lease rent on plots allotted to hospital against lease granted for more than 30 years. Accordingly, communication demanding deposit of GST liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that valuation of fuel oil and diesel oil used during coastal run of the vessel is to be done as per the ‘Residual Method’ prescribed under rule 9(1) of the Valuation Rules.
ITAT Kolkata held that as assessee has provided the explanation with documentary evidence and such documents have not been held as false either by AO during assessment proceedings or during penalty proceedings. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) not leviable.
Delhi High Court held that refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) in respect of telecommunication services rendered to inbound subscribers of Foreign Telecom Operators (FTOs) granted.
Kerala High Court held that the Principal Commissioner while considering application u/s. 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act should solely assessee the condonation in preferring the refund application. The Principal Commissioner shouldn’t assessee merit of the refund claim.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards unexplained expenditure unsustainable as impugned amount has already been surrendered by the firm and accepted by the Settlement Commission.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere acceptance of the reassessed value and payment thereof will not be sufficient to confirm the allegations of undervaluation. Burden on the department to prove mis-declaration and undervaluation not discharged. Hence, differential duty demand set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that revocation of customs broker licence for violation of post import condition of the exemption notification by the importer unsustainable as customs broker has a limited role of filing bill of entry and at no stretch of imagination can be held liable for violation of post import condition.
CESTAT Chennai held that coverage of activity of Postweld heat treatment/ stress relief heat treatment as within the definition of ‘Technical Testing and Analysis Service’ needs re-consideration as appellant doesn’t issue any report certifying quality of goods.
ITAT Raipur held that revisionary proceedings cannot be termed as illegal or not maintainable when the assessee have not responded and remain non-compliant in explaining his case before the PCIT.
