ITAT Mumbai held that amendment to section 36(1)(va) is not applicable to A.Y. 2017-2018. Accordingly, as the employees contribution to provident fund is deposited before the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the same cannot be disallowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of declared value based on NIDB data on similar goods unsustainable. Accordingly, differential duty demand and imposition of penalty thereon is unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of application for fixation of special rate under notification no. 32/99-CE and notification no. 31/2008-CE to new industrial units set up in North-Eastern States is incorrect and are in violation of law.
ITAT Mumbai held that order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act by merely remitting the matter back to AO without giving a finding that profit declared by assessee is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is liable to be set-aside.
CESTAT Kolkata held that when buyer and seller are not related and the price is the sole consideration, the transaction value at the time and place of export will be the assessable value. Accordingly, customs duty paid at higher assessable value is directed to be refunded.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act to be restricted to the borrowed amount which is not used for business purpose.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee failed to produce books of account before AO as well as before CIT(A). Books were produced before Tribunal. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO with direction to consider the documents produced and adjudicate the issue accordingly.
ITAT Raipur resorted the matter back to AO to verify the actual status of payment of consideration by each co-owner vis-à-vis applicability of provisions of section 194IA of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) cannot be taken as NIL. Accordingly, matter set aside with direction to re-compute ALP and transfer pricing adjustment.
ITAT Hyderabad held that receipt of more than Rs. 20,000 by way of cash without any reasonable cause is in contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 271D duly imposed.
