The Tribunal held that effective opportunity was not provided before rejecting the applications for registration and approval. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for reconsideration in accordance with law.
CESTAT Bangalore held that limitation for filing a service tax appeal depends on the actual date of communication of the order, not merely the date of issuance. The Tribunal remanded the matter after finding no proof of delivery of the adjudication orders.
ITAT Pune held that delay caused by lack of proper legal advice and dependence on tax consultants constituted reasonable cause. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on Section 80P deduction.
CESTAT Delhi held that providing buses with drivers to RSRTC did not amount to Rent-a-Cab Service since operational control remained with the owner. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand and penalties.
ITAT Mumbai accepted part of the assessee’s explanation that cash used for credit card payments came from family members. The Tribunal relied on income tax returns, bank statements, and affidavits while granting partial relief.
The Tribunal held that full disallowance of purchases was not justified where corresponding sales and quantitative stock records were accepted. ITAT sustained only estimated disallowance at 12.5% of disputed purchases.
ITAT Raipur held that additional evidence such as C-Forms cannot be relied upon by the appellate authority without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Bangalore remanded the case after finding that the Department had granted exemption on similar rental income for subsequent periods. The Tribunal directed fresh examination due to inconsistent appellate findings.
CESTAT Chennai held that payment of Special Additional Duty is mandatory before claiming refund under Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal dismissed the importer’s challenge against SAD demand on imported silk fabrics.
ITAT Rajkot held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approving authority merely stated Yes, I am satisfied without independent application of mind. The Tribunal treated Section 151 approval as a mandatory procedural safeguard.
