CESTAT Chennai held that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked where the Department itself disagreed with the CERA audit objection that triggered the show cause notice. The Tribunal ruled that the dispute was interpretational and the demand was therefore time-barred.
The Bombay High Court held that royalty refunded by a foreign company to its Indian subsidiary under an Advance Pricing Agreement could not be taxed as its income. The Court also ruled that the APA governed the determination of the arm’s length price for the covered assessment years.
The Bombay High Court held that interest under Section 234D applies to excess income tax refunds issued before June 1, 2003, by following its earlier binding decision. The ITAT order was set aside and the Revenue’s appeal was allowed.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition after holding that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy before the NCLAT under Section 61 of the IBC. The Court ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked when such an alternative remedy exists.
The Karnataka High Court directed removal of encroachments from the road margin and civic amenity site after holding that the land claimant had no established right over the property. The Court dismissed the challenge to the survey and ordered action within eight weeks.
The Kerala High Court held that merely reporting eligible IGST credit under CGST and SGST instead of IGST did not amount to excess input tax credit or justify proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act.
CESTAT Bangalore held that renting residential premises to an educational institution for use as student hostels qualifies for exemption under Section 66D(m). The Tribunal ruled that the ultimate residential use of the property, not the identity of the lessee, determines eligibility for exemption.
CESTAT Chennai held that the one-time 50% capital cost collected for water supply infrastructure qualified for exemption under Section 104 of the Finance Act. The Tribunal ruled that the department could not take a contrary view after granting the same exemption for earlier periods.
The Tribunal held that the mark-up earned on ocean freight represented profit and was not liable to service tax under Steamer Agent Services. It set aside the demand by following its earlier decision in the appellant’s own case.
Delhi High Court ruled that the amendment restricting Explanation 2(e) applies prospectively and cannot take away vested refund rights relating to earlier tax periods. The Department was directed to decide the refund claims on merits.
