CESTAT Delhi held that service of collection of Toll (user) fee on behalf of National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) not covered under service tax for the period prior to introduction of negative list regime.
ITAT Delhi held that expenditure of customer contracts and assembled workforce incurred which will give enduring benefits to the assessee is capital expenditure. Accordingly, depreciation is allowable on the same.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from leasing- hiring of Rigs are taxable as business profit under section 44BB of the Income Tax Act. Such receipts are not in the nature of royalty and hence cannot be taxed under section 9(1)(vi) read with section 115A of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Amritsar held that as income of the deceased person offered to tax, credit of TDS cannot be denied merely because it appears in the name of deceased mother. A particular income cannot be taxed twice under the law.
Reopening notice was issued without any tangible material. Mere change of opinion not provide jurisdiction to Revenue to re-open assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that in case of payments to non-resident, when PAN of non-resident payee is not available, TDS is to be deducted at the rates applicable in respective Tax Treaties.
Delhi High Court held that as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra, all dues including statutory dues shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of dues for period prior to date on which approval to resolution plan is granted could be continued.
CESTAT Delhi held that one to one co-relation is not required for taking Cenvat credit under Rule 3 of CCR. Once credit have been rightly taken, there is no restriction in use of such credit for payment of either central excise duty or service tax or any other specified tax liability.
ITAT Dehradun held that the interest is accretion to the value of compensation and hence it is a part of compensation. Accordingly, interest received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is exempted under section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act.
Madras High Court held that writ petition not entertained as petitioner failed to make use of opportunities granted by the department to respond to the notices.
