The Tribunal observed that multiple departmental orders and ER-1 returns consistently reflected classification under CETI 2403 99 10. The later stand taken in the show cause notice was found to be inconsistent with the department’s earlier conduct. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
CESTAT Delhi sustained the service tax demand after finding that the royalty amounts were based on receipts acknowledged by the appellant’s Director. The Tribunal held that the demand covered only amounts actually received.
The Kerala High Court set aside a show cause notice covering multiple financial years, holding that such composite notices were legally unsustainable. The authorities were permitted to issue separate notices for each assessment year.
The Tribunal held that business promotion and development expenses cannot be disallowed without concrete evidence establishing their non-genuineness. Mere assumptions and doubts are insufficient to deny legitimate business expenditure.
The Kerala High Court set aside both the show cause notice and order-in-original issued for multiple assessment years through a single proceeding. The Court permitted fresh action through separate notices for each relevant year.
The ITAT Agra declined to condone an extraordinary delay of 2,799 days in filing the quantum appeal, holding that the explanation regarding non-service of the appellate order did not constitute sufficient cause. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
ITAT Pune ruled that investments in mutual funds and tax-free bonds should not form part of the investment pool for Rule 8D(2)(ii) calculations. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the details and recompute the disallowance. Both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT Agra held that reassessment proceedings framed using a PAN surrendered years earlier were invalid. Since the assessment was based on a non-existent PAN, the entire proceedings were quashed.
The Agra ITAT held that disallowance of employees’ PF and ESI contributions could not be made through Section 143(1) processing when the legal position was unsettled. The ruling emphasizes that highly debatable issues fall outside the scope of prima facie adjustments.
The Chandigarh ITAT held that deduction under Section 54 cannot be restricted merely because the new residential property is jointly held with a spouse. The decisive factor is the source of investment, which in this case originated entirely from the assessee.
