DCIT-CC-8(4) Vs Offbeat Developers Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined Revenue appeals involving disallowances made on various expenses claimed by a mall developer engaged in leasing property and providing related services, where income was offered under both “Income from House Property” and “Profits and Gains from Business or Profession.” The […]
Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively rejected the books of accounts after recording discrepancies. The Court upheld the Section 69B addition for unexplained investment in building construction.
ITAT Mumbai held that prolonged non-payment of interest and repeated amendments to loan agreements justified benchmarking AE loans at a fixed 6.5% rate instead of floating LIBOR rates. The Tribunal also directed grant of credit for interest income already offered to tax suo motu.
The High Court held that the State could not continue GST proceedings or block ITC after failing to submit its claim during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The impugned notice and ITC blockage were set aside.
The High Court clarified that completed assessments do not abate upon search proceedings because no assessment proceedings remain pending. However, the earlier assessment loses enforceability after a fresh Section 153A assessment is passed.
The Tribunal held that deducting TDS only on part of the purchase price of immovable property was contrary to Section 194IA. TDS was required to be deducted on the full consideration of ₹4.81 crore.
The Tribunal rejected the Department’s approach of granting interest only on 7.5% statutory pre-deposit. It held that interest was payable on the entire ₹15 lakh deposited during investigation.
The Bombay High Court held that corporate guarantees issued without any fee, commission, or consideration cannot be treated as taxable supplies under GST. The Court quashed GST proceedings and show cause notices issued against the company.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that procedural defects in appeal filings are curable and cannot justify outright dismissal without granting an opportunity for correction. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
CESTAT Bangalore held that differential service tax could not be demanded by reclassifying erection and installation services as Works Contract Service. The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly paid VAT on goods and service tax on the service component.
