Calcutta High Court held that internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price [CUP] is most appropriate method in determining Arm’s Length Price [ALP] for sale of power by Captive Power Plant to non-eligible units of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that fixed monthly AC charges is an essential component of “rent” thus rent goes beyond the ceiling limit and thus is excluded from the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Hence, appellant is entitled to a decree of eviction.
Madras High Court held that adjusting entire demand raised against refund due even during pendency of appeal is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, department directed to refund balance amount with interest.
They also explained that the renting service, including furniture, was approved by the SEZ Unit Approval Committee for use in authorized operations. Department argued that furniture did not fall under immovable property and therefore could not be covered under the Renting of Immovable Property service category.
Attachment order for freezing of bank accounts of assessee was lifted on the condition that the taxpayer pays 20% of the disputed demand in instalments and if the taxpayer defaulted on any instalment, the attachment would stand revived automatically.
Tribunal also observed that assessee’s change in classification from 25132030 to 25132090 after the notification indicated an intent to circumvent the export restriction. It further held that reliance on internal communications not mentioned in the show cause notice did not alter the fact that the export violated DGFT policy.
Department argued that the inspection certificates appeared forged and misleading. It was pointed out that the inspection timings shown were not physically possible, and the certificates were issued by an inspector whose link to the issuing agency was unclear.
ITAT instructed the AO to verify the TDS credit reflected in Form 26AS and grant the due credit in accordance with the law, again contingent on the assessee providing necessary details.
Bombay High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that income tax penalty notices must clearly specify grounds of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Calcutta High Court hears appeal on the validity of tax penalties under Section 271(1)(c), specifically if show-cause notices lacking specific grounds are invalid. The case involves the Thakur Prasad Sao Group.
