The Tribunal held that rental income earned from immovable property held under trust could not automatically be treated as business income. It ruled that the proviso to Section 2(15) was wrongly invoked where the trust’s dominant object remained charitable.
The ITAT Agra upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording reasons for dissatisfaction. The Tribunal reiterated that such satisfaction is mandatory before invoking Rule 8D.
Tribunal held that job work activities resulting in intermediate products do not attract reversal under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules when the final dutiable products are cleared on payment of excise duty. The appeal against the service tax demand was accordingly allowed.
The Tribunal held that a commercial trade discount given to a bulk buyer could not be added to assessable value without evidence of additional consideration. It ruled that the department failed to prove any free benefit flowing from the buyer to the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld findings that the arrangement allowing the Successful Resolution Applicant to receive 50% of PUFE recoveries was contrary to the IBC framework. The recoveries were held to constitute assets of the Corporate Debtor.
CESTAT Chennai held that the extended limitation period could not be applied where the dispute involved interpretation of exemption and export provisions. Since all transactions were disclosed in books and returns, the demand was held time-barred.
The High Court held that the application seeking to set aside the auction sale was not legally maintainable. It upheld the DRAT’s decision restoring the Recovery Officer’s order and directed completion of the sale process.
The ITAT Delhi held that an assessment order passed in the name of an amalgamated company that had ceased to exist was void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on settled law that jurisdictional defects involving non-existent entities cannot be cured under the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai remanded an excise valuation dispute after finding that the CAS-4 certificates required factual verification. The Tribunal also held that the extended limitation period could not be invoked in the absence of clear allegations of suppression.
The Madras High Court allowed reconsideration of an ex parte GST assessment after the assessee explained failure to respond due to a part-time accountant’s lapse. The Court remanded the matter subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax.
