CESTAT Delhi held that M/s. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. can distribute credits on input services attributable to the final product on a pro rata basis proportionate to the turnover between the manufacturing plants of Parle and its contract manufacturing units
Delhi High Court held that donations to institutions other than the one enlisted in Schedule (VII) of the Companies Act, 2013 is not deductible as Corporate Social Responsibility.
ITAT Chennai held that addition of unexplained income unsustainable as source of money including identity of the creditors is duly explained by the assessee and further the amount has been transferred through proper banking channel only.
CESTAT Chennai held that adjudicating authority has ordered confiscation of red sander but refrained from confiscation of container u/s 119 and accordingly penalty u/s 114 on the appellant was not imposed. Matter remanded to re-look into the non-imposition of penalty.
ITAT Bangalore held that rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules doesnt provide for disallowance of Foreign Tax Credit in case of delay in filing of Form No. 67 and Filing of Form No. 67 is not mandatory, hence Foreign Tax Credit cannot be denied for delay in furnishing of Form No. 67.
CESTAT Delhi held that services relating to construction of school building or hospital building to a charitable institutions/ trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act is exempt under service tax vide clause 2(k) of notification no. 25/2012-ST.
ITAT Jaipur held that rejection of books of account on the basis of insignificant defects is unjustified as Before invoking provisions of section 145(3) AO has to bring on record material the basis on which he has arrived at the conclusion with regard to correctness/ completeness of the accounts.
ITAT Pune held that it is an admitted fact that assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts and hence initiation of re-assessment proceedings merely on the change of opinion by AO is impermissible in law.
ITAT Delhi held that locker being in joint names and first name was indicative of real ownership and hence the assessment of the contents of the locker should be rightly done in the hands of the first owner of the locker.
CESTAT Mumbai held that eligibility of taking credit of the duties is undisputable and also there was procedural aberration in such case refund of credit by cash eligible u/s 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act.
