ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) unsustainable as interest bearing funds were not utilized for non-business purpose and interest free advances were made in the course of business.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation invoked as appellant suppressed provision of service falling under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation’ service with intention to evade payment of tax.
CESTAT Delhi held that order passed without assigning any reasons is non-speaking order and, accordingly, the same is bad-in-law and is liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that merely billing customers for booking of space does not make one a Freight Forwarder. Therefore, the appellant whose activity has failed to establish his credential as a Freight Forwarder is found to satisfy the classification of Business Support Service. Accordingly, demand sustained.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant are entitled for the interest from the 3 months of the order of the tribunal till the refund of pre-deposit was granted.
ITAT Jaipur held that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act justified in absence of proper inquiry by AO which renders the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
CESTAT Allahabad held that any delay in filing of an appeal beyond the extended period of thirty days after expiry of normal period of sixty days, cannot be condoned
ITAT Delhi held that addition of cash credits in various bank accounts deleted by CIT(A) without verifying the persons/firm/Companies from whom the alleged amount has been credited is bad-in-law. Accordingly, matter resorted to the file of AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment sustained excel sheet and whatsapp chat are incriminating material found and seized during the course of search action.
ITAT Bangalore held that PCIT duly invoked provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order was passed by AO without carrying out necessary enquiry/verification.
