The Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of ₹2.32 lakh on 40 grams of gold bullion after granting the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to relief considering the prescribed jewellery limits and supporting evidence.
ITAT held that substantive rights in the property arose through the allotment letter and payment of consideration. Therefore, the period of holding was to be counted from allotment, resulting in Long-Term Capital Gain treatment.
The Tribunal rejected the challenge to disallowance of delayed PF and ESI employee contributions, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. It, however, directed verification of the assessee’s refund claim.
The Court held that ITC could not be denied where returns were filed before the cut-off date specified under Section 16(5). It quashed the assessment orders and directed reconsideration of the claim.
The Tribunal admitted insolvency proceedings after finding documentary evidence of operational debt, part payment, ledger confirmation, and admission of liability by the Corporate Debtor. The absence of any pre-existing dispute was a key factor.
The Tribunal set aside a penalty under Section 114(iii) after finding no evidence that the Customs Broker knew of or participated in the alleged overvaluation of export goods. The ruling emphasizes that penalties require proof of involvement or abetment.
The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, and assessment proceedings. The penalties were deleted as there was no concealment of income.
The Kolkata ITAT held that advisory and consultancy services provided by a UAE company did not amount to Fees for Technical Services because no technical knowledge was made available. Consequently, no TDS liability arose on the remittances.
The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued more than three years after the Department became aware of the facts was time-barred. The extended period of limitation was found to be unjustified.
The Tribunal held that once an earlier show cause notice had been issued on the same issue, the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation again. The service tax demand and related liabilities were set aside.
