CESTAT Chennai held that where the value has already been split as per the state law and VAT has been paid on the goods component of the composite works contract, no service tax can be levied on such component again taking recourse to Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards difference of share premium u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act by rejecting the valuation determined by the assessee without referring the matter for valuation to DVO is unjustified. Matter remanded for referring the same to DVO.
ITAT Chennai held that provisions of section 115BBE not invocable in case of addition u/s. 69A towards unexplained money as assessee is having only one source of income from business and claims that source for cash deposits is out of sales of the year.
ITAT Delhi held that salary income not taxable in India both u/s. 9(1) as services are rendered outside India and also not taxable under Article 15(1) of India-Netherland DTAA as required conditions satisfied.
ITAT Delhi held that the additions/disallowance, devoid of any incriminating material found during the course of search, cannot validate the assessment orders framed u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly, assessment orders u/s 153C cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that technical know-how fee received by the assessee falls under the category of royalty as defined in Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act and hence is eligible for deduction u/s. 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act justified as assessment order was passed by AO without proper inquiry and verification with regard to claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4).
ITAT Delhi held that once long term capital gain along with cost of acquisition and indexation accepted in the hands of one of the co-owner of the property, the same needs to be allowed/ accepted for other co-owner of the property too.
ITAT Delhi held that when the assessee has shown cash withdrawals during pre demonetization period more than the cash deposited during demonetization then the source cannot be disputed. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 deleted.
Bombay High Court held that the reopening of the assessment order based on change of opinion without surfacing of any tangible new information is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
