CESTAT Delhi held that overburden removal, excavation, and lignite loading formed part of integrated mining operations taxable only after introduction of “Mining Services” from 01.06.2007. The Tribunal ruled that incidental activities could not be separately taxed under site formation services.
Mumbai ITAT held that no further profits can be attributed to a DAPE once the Indian agent is remunerated at arm’s length for all FAR functions. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s “double profit attribution” theory and deleted the enhanced PE addition.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that additions under Section 68 could not be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiry or verification of creditors. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to sundry creditors and business transactions supported by documents and banking records.
Pune ITAT held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court ruling in Totgars does not apply to such claims.
The Bombay High Court held that GST proceedings initiated against a company that ceased to exist after merger were void ab initio. The Court ruled that Section 87 of the CGST Act does not permit fresh notices against non-existent entities.
The ITAT Mumbai set aside the CIT(A) order after finding that crucial survey findings and Tally data relating to accommodation entries were not properly examined. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh examination of the transactions and related evidence.
CCPA held that sale of toys without mandatory BIS certification violated the Consumer Protection Act and Toys Quality Control Order. The Authority imposed a penalty and directed future compliance with mandatory standards.
GSTAT held that the builder failed to uniformly pass on additional GST input tax credit benefits to homebuyers in a housing project. The Tribunal directed refund of the remaining profiteered amount with 18% interest.
The Court ruled that refund claims under inverted duty structure cannot be restricted using the earlier anomalous formula once Rule 89(5) was amended to remove inconsistencies. The authorities were directed to reconsider the refund claims under the amended provisions.
The Delhi High Court held that income tax returns and taxable income details are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court ruled that such information cannot be disclosed merely because it is sought in a matrimonial dispute.
