NCLAT held that small disputed amounts below ₹1 crore do not justify Section 7 proceedings or penalties under Section 65 when debt is substantially repaid.
Supreme Court admits appeal by Tesco Bengaluru against CESTAT ruling on reverse charge service tax for seconded overseas employees, relying on the Northern Operating Systems precedent.
CESTAT Chennai rules Service Tax cannot be levied on the TDS amount paid by an Indian company on behalf of a foreign service provider, as TDS is not ‘consideration’ for the service.
CESTAT Allahabad quashes Service Tax demand against a contractor, ruling that reliance solely on unverified ITR and Form 26AS data is insufficient and invalidates the extended limitation period.
Bombay High Court admits Revenue’s appeal against ITAT. Issues concern if contracts reallocated to JV members require TDS (S. 194C) and where profit should be taxed.
Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(4) of the India-Norway DTAA (7.5% presumptive tax on gross receipts), rejecting the Assessing Officer’s attempt to tax it under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
Shringar Developers wins ITAT appeal. Tribunal rules that higher taxable interest than expense negates Section 14A disallowance. Interest on capital contribution to firm held for commercial expediency under Section 36(1)(iii).
ITAT Delhi ruled AO cannot use Section 154 to disallow ESI/PF deduction based on the later Supreme Court Checkmate judgment, as the issue was previously debatable.
Drawing on precedents, the ITAT held that a mandatory Section 153D approval for search assessments must be proven. The assessment order was set aside because the Department could not locate or produce the JCIT’s prior approval and satisfaction note after eight years.
The ITAT Delhi heard an appeal from Kamal Kant, whose set-off of non-speculative business losses from Futures & Options (F&O) against Capital Gains income was disallowed by the tax authorities. Citing Section 71(2) of the Income-tax Act and judicial precedent, the ITAT found the set-off permissible.
