CESTAT Chennai held that appellant being religious body is liable to pay service tax for renting of immovable property only from 01.07.2012 and not before that date.
CESTAT Chennai held that imposition of redemption fine and penalties when goods were provisionally released, reprocessed and exported after re-processing is unjustified and hence liable to be set aside.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Bank has first charge over the properties being secured creditor in priority over all Other Debts, Revenues, Taxes, Cesses and Other Rates payable to the Central or State Government or Legal Authority.
CESTAT Kolkata held that reimbursement for miscellaneous activities by Clearing and Forwarding Agents from their clients being reimbursed on actual basis is not includible in value of taxable service and hence service tax not leviable.
ITAT Mumbai held that any expenditure incurred for purpose of earning income chargeable under the head ‘income from other sources’ is allowable as deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chennai held that the corporate guarantee to Associated Enterprise (AE) is an international transaction and it has to be assessed at 0.5% of the corporate commission. Hence, directed AO to restrict the disallowance at 0.5% of the guarantee value.
CESTAT Chennai held that the amount of damages received for tolerating the breach of contract by contractors and sub-contractors is not consideration. Any amount, which is not a consideration for provision of service, cannot be subjected to service tax.
ITAT Bangalore held that the compensation paid for delay in handing over of possession of the property is the liability that arose in the course of business of assessee and hence allowable as business expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Indian Subsidiary operating in an independent manner doesn’t constitute as a “Permanent Establishment” in India and hence income of the assessee is not allowable to be taxed in India.
Allahabad High Court held that the pardon granted under Section 306 Cr.P.C. to a person in a scheduled offence would not ipso facto result in his acquittal in the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
