CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as work orders involves both supply of material as well as service, the same is classifiable under works contract service and not under Commercial and Industrial Construction Service.
ITAT Delhi held that maintenance charges not connected to the rental income cannot be considered as part of rental income. Accordingly, maintenance charge collected is taxable as business income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of revenue expenditure treating it as capital merely on the basis of description of the expenditure without any substantive record is unsustainable.
Gujarat High Court held that merely because the petitioner inadvertently paid Rs.2000/- less towards principal outstanding amount of tax, it cannot be denied the benefit of ‘Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019’.
Calcutta High Court held that Look Out Circular has dangerous repercussions on the person’s right to freely move across and beyond the country and remain mobile. Hence, Look Out Circular cannot be made the norm for recovery of outstanding payments to the Bank.
ITAT Amritsar held that revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as AO accepted the deal of sale of agriculture land with a conscious and independent application of mind.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that job worker is the one who works upon the goods supplied directly or indirectly by the principal manufacturer. In absence of the said supply, appellants do not fit into the definition of ‘job worker’. Hence, demand unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment untenable as source of investment made by the appellant stands sufficiently explained.
Madras High Court held that by including processes such as refrigeration, re-packing, polishing, labelling, re-conditioning repair, remaking, refurbishing, testing, calibration and re-engineering within the ambit of manufacture, the legislature clearly intended an expansive understanding of what constituted ‘manufacture’ for the purposes of ‘deemed export’.
ITAT Raipur held that addition in case of bogus purchase transaction restricted to the extent of the difference between the gross profit of genuine purchases transactions and gross profit of bogus purchases transactions.
