ITAT Mumbai held that transfer pricing adjustment on account of guarantee commission income is unsustainable in terms of India-Germany DTAA.
Orissa High Court held that computer print-outs are inadmissible in evidence as not accompanied by requisite certificates as mandated u/s 36-B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received from the supply of software and automated services are not taxable in India.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowed the claim of loss on account of written off inventory as the assessee failed to produce necessary evidence proving that such stock became obsolete and unusable.
ITAT Delhi held that as common area maintenance (CAM) charges are for maintenance of common area the same is covered by the provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act Accordingly TDS is deductible u/s 194C in case of CAM charges payment.
ITAT Raipur held that addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit unsustainable as AO has not rejected the books of accounts Accordingly it can be concluded that by accepting the books of accounts AO has also accepted the cash deposits to have been sourced out of duly disclosed source.
ITAT Chandigarh held that AO erred in applying the rate of tax as 30% under section 115BBE instead of amended rate of tax 60% Accordingly revisionary power under section 263 rightly applied as order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Delhi held that where the property is not recorded in the books of account and explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of property is not offered satisfactorily then value of such property would be deemed to be income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that undisputedly the amount of service tax was paid by mistake and Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted certifying that incidence of duty has not been passed on Accordingly refund eligible as not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Held that the mere fact that the assessment order has been passed in a cryptic manner, by itself cannot make the order erroneous or pre-judicial to the interest of Revenue Accordingly revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable.
