ITAT Mumbai held that “other method” provided in Rule 10AB r.w.s. 92C (1) would be a good substitute for CUP as there is lack of reliable comparables in case of royalty transactions as royalty payments have been made for unique intangibles
Supreme Court held that dividend received by the Indian company having permanent establishment in Oman is not taxable in India in terms of Article 25 read with Article 8 (bis) of the Omani Tax Laws
Supreme Court held that a proviso cannot militate against the intention of the main provision in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act and thus a proviso cannot extend the limitation period which is fixed under the main provision.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount of compensation for defective product being capital in nature cannot be adjusted from WDV of the assets.
CESTAT Delhi held that if the audit points out some wrong assessment which was not pointed out by the officer scrutinizing the ER-1 return, the fault lies at the doorstep of the officer. Hence, invocation of extended period of limitation bad-in-law.
NCLT Delhi held that resolution plan submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant which was approved by CoC cannot be interfered by Adjudicating Authority. Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to analyse or evaluate commercial decision of CoC.
ITAT Delhi held that consideration paid for testing the ability of candidates do not fall within the purview of royalty under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA. Hence, there is no obligation withholding of tax u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that in view of the wider scope given in the definition under Section 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, cenvat credit of all the Input Services used in or in relation to the manufacture and sale of final products or in relation to the business activity cannot be denied.
CESTAT Chennai held that nature of service involving both service as well as transfer of property in goods/material is classifiable under ‘works contract. Hence re-classifying the same under erection, commission and installation is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Jaipur held that reassessment of income under section 147 of the Income Tax Act other than income in respect of which AO has formed a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment is unsustainable in law.
