CESTAT Hyderabad held that parking charges collected for providing parking space is liable for inclusion in the value of Management, Maintenance or Repair services and accordingly, service tax is payable on the same.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee (pharmaceutical company) is not entitled for claiming deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of freebies given to the doctors.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on wrong and irrelevant facts recorded under the reasons recorded for the formation of belief of escapement of income chargeable to income tax is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rendering a decision on goods that are yet to be provisionally assessed would be a premature intervention. The possible detriment that may arise on a future date is not a grievance that should be entertained unless and until it does translate as one upon occurrence of import or export of goods.
Telangana High Court has held that notices and proceedings initiated against the amalgamated Company (i.e. non-existing company) deserves to be set aside/quashed. Accordingly, entire proceedings held as bad-in-law.
Held that the amounts received for the use of transponder of tele-communication service charges are not royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and also under Article 12(8) of Indo Netherland DTAA.
ITAT Jaipur restored the matter back to CIT(E) as application for registration u/s. 12AB of the Income Tax Act was rejected solely due to alleged non-genuineness of the activities as charitable nature of activities of assessee not disputed.
Supreme Court held that tax/fee/ charge on erection of mobile towers is not upon the owner of the land and building but on the person who is responsible for erecting of the mobile tower on the land and building and is thus using the land or building for erection of the mobile tower.
Bombay High Court held that taking recourse to the provisions of Section 166A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of the Letter of Rogatory by the Magistrate without following procedure prescribed under section 155(2) cannot be sustained and deserved to be quashed.
CESTAT Chennai held that invocation of extended period of limitation unjustified as issue was mired in litigation and interpretation of law. Further, appellant is public sector undertaking and hence there is no scope of suppression with an intention to evade tax.
