ITAT Pune held that in view of huge quantitative differences, Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method cannot be applied. Hence, Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is applicable in respect of international transaction of ‘Sale of Finished Goods’.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that CENVAT Credit on inputs used for fabrication of capital goods like pollution control equipment, heating furnace, casting machine, coating machine, chimney, rolling machine, reheating machine, control panel, etc. is eligible.
ITAT Kolkata held that when original return filed was defective and such defect is removed u/s. 139(9) of the Income Tax Act, the return filed u/s. 139(1) becomes a valid return from the date when it was originally filed. Accordingly, set off business income with carry forwarded business loss allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as investigating officers failed to comply with conditions of section 36B of the Central Excise Act with respect to obtaining certificate prior to relying upon the computer printout. Hence, demand set aside as based on unauthenticated data.
Delhi High Court held that drawback benefit is duly available on export of gold dore bars on payment of only additional duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act at the time of import.
ITAT Mumbai held that the material/information on which AO have re-opened the assessment is no longer existing being legally incorrect. Hence, action of AO to have issued notice of re-opening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act itself fails.
Delhi High Court held that telecommunication-company, providing telecommunication and ancillary support services to company based in Singapore on its own cannot be qualified as ‘intermediary service’ as they have entered into separate contracts with service providers in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) deleted the additions/ disallowances on the basis of information/ evidences filed before him without providing any opportunity to AO is in violation of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A).
Bombay High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) could give directions only in pending assessment proceedings. Once assessment order is passed, DRP has not power to pass any direction.
Bombay High Court held that services in the nature of ‘Veterinary Services’ and ‘Technical and Laboratory Testing Services’ did not fall under taxable category of Business Auxiliary Services.
