CESTAT Ahmedabad held that construction service provided under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) are exempted from the clutches of service tax. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Sale/ conversion of business of assessee-firm as a going concern to company for consideration of paid up share capital does not amount to transfer liable to tax as capital gains.
ITAT Delhi quashed the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act as service of notice by way of affixture on the Assessee cannot be construed as sufficient Service of Notice.
Bombay High Court held that Para 3(a) of Circular No. 36/2010 Customs dated 23.09.2010 imposing time limits for amending shipping bills is ultra vires of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction on all expenditure incurred by it, on in-house research & development facility. Accordingly, restricting claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) to the extent approved by the prescribed authority i.e. DSIR unjustified.
Allahabad High Court held that passing of detention order without recording any findings with regard to the submissions made by the assessee is unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act duly available irrelevant of the fact that corpus contribution to the donee relates to the CSR activities.
ITAT Delhi held that interest on late deposit of TDS deleted as assessee was having sufficient cause for not depositing the TDS on time due to the Interim Order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a typographical error cannot be a reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escape assessment and hence initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable.
ITAT Pune held that invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act unjustified when AO examined the claim and took one of the plausible views and hence the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”.
