CESTAT Delhi held that providing buses with drivers to RSRTC did not amount to Rent-a-Cab Service since operational control remained with the owner. The Tribunal set aside the service tax demand and penalties.
ITAT Mumbai accepted part of the assessee’s explanation that cash used for credit card payments came from family members. The Tribunal relied on income tax returns, bank statements, and affidavits while granting partial relief.
The Tribunal held that full disallowance of purchases was not justified where corresponding sales and quantitative stock records were accepted. ITAT sustained only estimated disallowance at 12.5% of disputed purchases.
ITAT Raipur held that additional evidence such as C-Forms cannot be relied upon by the appellate authority without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Bangalore remanded the case after finding that the Department had granted exemption on similar rental income for subsequent periods. The Tribunal directed fresh examination due to inconsistent appellate findings.
Mumbai ITAT restored appeals dismissed for 179-day delay after observing that the assessee had relied bona fide on his Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal granted another opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play.
CESTAT Chennai held that payment of Special Additional Duty is mandatory before claiming refund under Notification No. 102/2007. The Tribunal dismissed the importer’s challenge against SAD demand on imported silk fabrics.
ITAT Rajkot held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approving authority merely stated Yes, I am satisfied without independent application of mind. The Tribunal treated Section 151 approval as a mandatory procedural safeguard.
The Calcutta High Court held that deduction and deposit of TDS constituted acknowledgment of a loan transaction and jural relationship. The Court granted interim protection after finding the respondent’s denial of liability inconsistent with its stand before Income Tax authorities.
CESTAT Delhi held that amounts received by a recovery agent from a lender were taxable as service consideration since no documentary evidence of a joint venture existed. The Tribunal upheld service tax demand, interest, and penalty.
