The Tribunal held that shares shown as non-current investments cannot automatically be treated as business expenditure for invoking Section 40A(2)(a). The matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The Madras High Court stayed the operation of a GST assessment and demand relating to seigniorage fee. The Court held that further action should await the Supreme Court’s decision on the same legal issue.
The Tribunal held that a customs refund claim cannot be rejected merely because the Chartered Accountant certificate was not in the suggested format. It ruled that procedural format deficiencies alone do not justify denial of refund.
ITAT held that interest earned on deposits kept as security for obtaining business loans was attributable to the cooperative society’s business activity. The income was therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Hyderabad ITAT found contradictions in the TPO’s reasoning for excluding a comparable company due to alleged lack of RPT data. The Tribunal directed fresh verification and recomputation of the RPT filter before deciding whether the company should remain excluded.
The final assessment order was emailed to the assessee after the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal held that the delayed communication rendered the assessment time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s objection regarding approval under Section 151 required consideration. The matter was sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
CESTAT held that rent paid for walls used to display advertisements forms an intrinsic component of advertising services and must be included in the taxable value. The Tribunal rejected the claim that the advertiser acted as a pure agent. However, the value of printed flexes sold separately was excluded from service tax valuation.
CESTAT held that for quarterly Rule 5 refund claims, the one-year limitation period must be calculated from the end of the quarter in which the FIRC is received. The Tribunal ruled that export of services is completed only upon receipt of foreign exchange.
CESTAT held that once service tax and interest were paid before issuance of the SCN and the payment was intimated to the department, penalty proceedings could not be sustained. The Section 78 penalty was therefore set aside.
