ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition on the basis of statement of director without independent finding given by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that exemption from basic excise duty vis-à-vis discharge of automobile cess effaces coverage of rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004).
Bombay High Court held that assessment order was passed after post considering the submission from the assessee regarding deduction under section 80P. Hence, reopening of assessment in absence of any new tangible material is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of retracted statement and in absence of any independent corroborative evidence unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that that the interest paid by the Indian branch-PE to the head office-GE is not taxable in India in terms of India-France DTAA.
ITAT Pune held that as assessee does not satisfy the condition of advancement of any other object of general public utility, its eligibility for benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act is doubtful.
ITAT Kolkata held that condonation of delay of 927 days in filing of the appeal not granted as explanation available in the affidavit is totally vague and not specific. Further, assessee neither complied with a single notice nor submitted any details.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, in absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts fully and truly during the regular assessment proceedings, is mere change of opinion and hence liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that as service actually falls under works contract service, then mere registration under construction of a new residential complex and payment of service tax thereon, wouldnt hold that services was rendered under construction of a new residential complex.
Bombay High Court held that provision u/s 14(2) of the Income Tax Act does not empower the AO to apply Rule 8D straightaway without considering the correctness of the assessees claim in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income.
