CESTAT Kolkata held that the place of provision of the service of transportation of goods by air/sea from a place in India to a place outside India, will be a place outside the taxable territory. Thus, such service being within the purview of Export of Service Rules will be outside the service tax net.
CESTAT Kolkata held that composite contract involving transportation of goods and loading/unloading, packing/unpacking, etc. will be treated as a contract for transportation only as the other services are naturally bundled together with the principal service of transportation. Accordingly, service tax leviable under GTA service and not under cargo handling service.
CESTAT Allahabad held that charge of clandestine removal cannot be imputed in absence of any evidence or in absence of an independent investigation. Accordingly, demand unjustified.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that corpus donations are capital in nature and hence cannot be added to the income of the assessee and hence not taxable.
ITAT Bangalore held that the payments made to gateway providers are not brokerage and TDS u/s. 194H of the Income Tax Act is not liable to be deducted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act treating share application money from undisclosed source unsustainable as burden duly discharged by filing confirmation, affidavit, copy of income tax return and bank statement of respective parties.
Uttarakhand High Court held that issuance of notice to the Transferor Company (i.e. non-existent entity) and order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act against the non-existent entity is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per rule 4(b)(iii) of the point of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, in case payment is received before change in effective rate of tax and invoice is issued after change in effective rate of tax, then, point of taxation will be date of payment. Hence, demand set aside on advance receipt.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue received by the assessee for providing centralized services is not in the nature of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s. 9(I)(vi) Explanation of Income Tax Act, but it is a business income and since assessee is not having PE in India, the same is not taxable.
Bombay High Court held that no assessment can be reopened merely on the basis of change of opinion. Accordingly, initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.