CESTAT Allahabad held that invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act unjustified in absence of any willful suppression of facts with an intent to evade the payment of tax.
CESTAT Chennai held that the activity of fitting the power lens into the frames is merely results in assembly and hence the same doesn’t amount to manufacture. Accordingly, duty demand unsustainable in law.
ITAT Jaipur held that provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable because the immovable property was purchased/ sold as business property. Further, profit earned was duly reflected in the return of income. Accordingly, demand set aside.
ITAT Raipur held that confirmation of addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money by CIT(A) in absence of any evidence justified as assessee adopted lackadaisical approach and evaded from participating in proceedings before CIT(A).
CESTAT Delhi held that once rule 10(b) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1944 gets applicable, residual rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1944 cannot be applied. Hence, demand confirmed under rule 11 is liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) being a body corporate, the petitioner (service provider) was liable to pay service tax on works contract to the extent of 50%. Accordingly, the demand was set aside as 50% service tax was duly discharged.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of revisionary power u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act without satisfying two conditions i.e. order was erroneous and it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount received by the appellant from VMI in terms of the Settlement Agreement was consideration for transfer of goodwill and the same is taxable under Capital Gains and cannot be treated as business income.
ITAT Bangalore held that as income is estimated under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, so addition under section 68/69A of the Income Tax Act is impermissible.
CESTAT Allahabad held that as per provisions of section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 granting of adjournment beyond three times is unjustifiable. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982
