CESTAT Kolkata held that one time payment, in the form of Premium or Salami for transfer of interest in the property cannot be equated as rent and hence the same is not exigible to the service tax. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act without elements of fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or violation of Act or Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of tax is untenable in law.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that duty demand valuing goods cleared to sister concern in term of rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 (CVR, 2000) without any reasonable justification and without providing report of Deputy Director (Cost) is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Surat held that revisionary order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act without considering reply of the assessee and without granting an opportunity of being heard is unsustainable in law as against the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court held that distinction made by resolution professional with regard to class of home buyers who seeks remedies under RERA is artificial and amount to ‘hyper-classification’ and hence falls afoul of Article 14. Accordingly, such classification is unsustainable.
Kerala High Court held that penalty leviable when the person chargeable to tax fails to deposit the tax collected by him within a period of 30 days from the due date of payment of such tax.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Nutritional Supplements classifiable under heading 2106 9099 fall under Serial No. 453 of Schedule III of the Notification 1/2017-IGST. Accordingly, IGST @18% is payable and not @28%. Accordingly, demand of differential custom duty unsustainable.
ITAT Raipur held that interest income earned is not equal to the percentage of interest expenditure incurred cannot be reason for disqualifying expenditure within the provision of section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that it is settled principle of law that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the exempt income.
CESTAT Mumbai held that in either of the three options given in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, there is no provisions that if the assessee does not opt any of the option at a particular time, then option of payment of 5% will automatically be applied. Accordingly, demand unsustainable.
