The Supreme Court held that land acquisition and sale agreements do not constitute taxable “real estate services,” dismissing the Revenue’s appeal for service tax demand.
SC held that value of duty-paid bought-out items delivered directly to buyer’s site cannot be included in assessable value of boilers cleared in CKD condition. The show cause notice invoking extended limitation period was declared invalid.
Delhi High Court held that tax authorities cannot replace projected business valuations with actual results when assessing transfer pricing, emphasizing commercial prudence principle in asset transfers.
SC confirmed enforcement of an unregistered 2000 sale agreement, directing execution of sale deed after payment of dues with 16% interest and ₹5 crore compensation to ensure fairness.
The Supreme Court ruled that earlier compensation was inadequate and raised the award to ₹15.13 lakh, ensuring fair restitution for a minor’s lifelong disability.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under Section 272A(2)(g) cannot be imposed when TDS delay is due to technical reasons and the assessee has already paid compounding charges and interest.
The tribunal dismissed both assessee and Revenue appeals, confirming that income from accommodation entries can be estimated at 5% of credit entries in the bank. The ruling clarifies that when commissions are claimed on transactions without actual goods delivery, a reasonable percentage can be applied to determine taxable income.
ITAT Delhi upheld that non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to HUDA constitutes default under sections 201(1)/201(1A). Following High Court precedent in Puri Construction, the ruling clarifies that such payments attract TDS under section 194C even without a formal contract.
ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal challenging PCIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263, holding that the Commissioner can revise orders even when the matter is pending before CIT(A). Key takeaway: jurisdiction under Sec. 263 extends to unresolved appeals.
Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by annulling assessment without addressing issue of alleged bogus purchases and directed a denovo adjudication on merits in compliance with Section 250(4) and (6).
