SC held that amount received as subvention/grant from parent company by a loss making subsidiary cannot be considered as revenue receipt in the hands of subsidiary company as grant was made by parent company to protect its investment made in subsidiary.
HC held that a reference to TPO can be made only after passing a speaking odder disposing off objections raised by assessee. In the present case since, the reference was made without passing such a speaking order, the reference so made was invalid.
Bombay HC held that an unintentional error on the part of assessee while filling an appeal, more so when the department also acted ignoring the error, would not result in rejecting assessee’s appeal being time barred.
Sec 145A(a)(ii) has no applicability on service revenue which follows that service revenue need to be inclusive of service tax. It also held that service tax which has not even been claimed as deduction cannot be disallowed by recasting profit and loss account of assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that as to whether a transaction is entered into at an Arm’s Length Price or not must depend upon the facts of each case relating to the transaction per-se i.e. the transaction itself as the profit is only a possibility of the desired result with or without the aid of international transaction.
ITAT held that compensation received for loss of business activity is a capital receipt as it is injury to the profit making apparatus and not the loss of profits. Therefore, in the present case , non-supply of land by supplier which was to be used by the consortium was injury to profit making apparatus and hence capital receipt.
As per draft law (revised draft),input tax credit to receiver shall be available only when the supplier has paid the tax on supplies made to receiver and the same get matched (i.e. matching of output supplies with input supplies declared by supplier and buyer respectively).Once the credit get matched it will reflect in electronic credit ledger of buyer
ITAT held that application under the provisions of sec.254(2) seeking rectification of order passed by tribunal is maintainable only in cases where it was established that specific attention of the bench was drawn to a particular decision and the decision was specifically relied upon but not considered by the Tribunal.
Simple definition of capital goods has been given in revised draft which states that capital goods means goods, value of which is capitalized in books of accounts of person claiming credit and which are used or intended to be used in course or furtherance of business.
The Honble Bombay HC in the above stated case held that when the wordings of law are quite clear then law should be applied in its letter and no space could be made for logical or beneficial or constructive interpretation.
