Held that no part consideration of acquisition of asset/property was paid on alleged execution of possession-cum-Satakat and there is no other corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim of assessee. Capital gain treated as STCG instead of LTCG.
Held that the allegation of clandestine production and removal has to be established against any person by independent and tangible evidence. No demand exists in absence of such evidence.
Bombay High Court held that importers who fall under Notification No. 27/02-Cus dated 1st March 2002 are not entitled to any drawback under Section 74 of Customs Act 1962.
Held that the demand of services tax is not sustainable on the basis of TDS /26AS statements.
Held that it is well settled law that, the sale of software product which will not giving rise to royalty income.
Held that Commissioner should not simply relegate the point that the assessment order is erroneous to the AO. The Commissioner, after analyzing the record, ought to have recorded a categorical finding and provided valid reasons as to how the assessment order is erroneous. Revision unsustainable
Held that the conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact is untenable as the Act contemplates a positive action which betrays a negative intent of wilful default.
Held that tax effect in the departmental appeal is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs as revised vide circular dated 08/08/2019. Appeal rejected.
Held that broker pledged the shares of the clients with banks for obtaining bank finance. It is not justified to take value of shares pledged as undisclosed investment of the broker.
Held that the payment towards CAM charges are in the nature of contractual payment which are made for availing services/ facilities. Accordingly, TDS is deductible u/s. 194C
