ITAT Mumbai held that the amount spent by the assessee on clinical trials outside the approved in-house facility is eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that M/s. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not commercial organization and only organizing game of cricket. Therefore, any service rendered to BCCI-IPL by M/s. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association is not in the nature of support of business of BCCI. Accordingly, service tax demand not sustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that CCR, or the Central Excise Rules or the Act places an obligation on the buyer of the goods to investigate that whether the process undertaken by the supplier amounts to manufacture or not and determine the duty thereon.
Madras High Court held that no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the GST Act, 2017 and importantly adverse decision is taken by the respondent. Hence, impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Jharkhand High Court held that when search is initiated, penalty is leviable under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) post initiation of search is unsustainable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that sale of vacant plot is not eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that assessee being a non-resident entrusted the work to representative in India whose inaction caused delay of 36 days in filing of an appeal is reasonable cause to condone the delay.
CESTAT Chennai held that tax liability was fastened upon the appellant without the principles of audi alteram partem (i.e. without referring to the documents furnished by the appellant) is against the principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Indore held that the expenditure incurred for obtaining loan is a revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the fee paid for renewal of cash-credit is a revenue expenditure.
CESTAT Chennai held that an assessee cannot avail of the options under Rule 6(2) and 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 simultaneously. Once the option is availed, other option cannot be chosen simultaneously.
