ITAT Jodhpur held that levying late fees u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act for delay in filing TDS return for 4th quarter of F.Y. 2012-2013 unwarranted as power to levy fees has come into effect only from 01.06.2015
Allahabad High Court held that both the goods i.e. ‘Bakery Shortening’ and ‘Vanaspati (hydrogenated vegetable oil)’ are being treated as one under Central Excise Tariff Act as well as Customs Tariff Act. Hence, both are to be treated as same even under Sales Tax Law.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that extreme penalty of revocation of custom broker licence for violating obligation under regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 unwarranted, however, imposition of penalty and forfeiture of security justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that receipts taxable under Fees for Technical/ Included Services (FTS/FIS) as assessee failed to prove that it is actual reimbursement as there is no basis of allocation or actual cost incurred for affiliates.
CESTAT Delhi held that service provided by technical, inspection and certification agency in relation to inspection and certification of export goods is liable to service tax under ‘Technical, Inspection and Certification Service’.
Kerala High Court set aside the order with direction to Excise Commissioner to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and decide the distance as per Abkari Laws since there is a Temple right opposite to the bar in question.
ITAT Jaipur held that the assessment order passed by AO after considering the information filed during assessment proceedings cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
ITAT Kolkata held that rejection of claim of long-term capital loss u/s 50B of the Income Tax Act unjustified as Form 3CEA filed during the assessment proceedings along with an affidavit mentioning reason for non-furnishing of Form 3CEA with return of income.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards long term capital gain sustained as assessee failed to furnish confirmation from the purchaser company as lower sale consideration was claimed by assessee.
CESTAT Allahabad held that invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act unjustified in absence of any willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of tax.
