The Tribunal restored the penalty matter as the quantum addition was sent back to the AO. It held that penalty must follow the outcome of reassessment proceedings.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty recovery under section 28AAA of the Customs Act justifiable since IT services fraudulently mis-declared as ‘Management Consulting Services’ to obtain benefits under Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS). Accordingly, company appeal is dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the higher 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot apply to transactions prior to 01.04.2017. It directed application of 30%, reinforcing that amendments apply prospectively.
ITAT Mumbai held that with respect to benchmarking of export transaction, foreign Associated Enterprise [AE] can be chosen as tested party since AE possess the least complex functional analysis. Accordingly, transfer pricing adjustment not justifiable.
The petition challenges the validity of a cess law on grounds of lack of legislative competence and arbitrariness. The Court has not ruled yet and has granted time for further submissions, keeping the issue open.
CESTAT Kolkata held that amount deposited during the course of investigation is not voluntary payment but it was deposit made under mistaken notion and hence doesn’t amount to duty. Accordingly, interest is eligible on amount refunded.
ITAT Delhi held that granting of mandatory approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act by Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in a mechanical manner and without due application of mind is an empty ritual. Thus, order held void-abinitio for want of valid approval u/s. 153D.
The issue was whether disclosed investments could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that Section 69 cannot be invoked when investments are recorded and taxed, upholding deletion of additions.
The case concerned rejection of reply without addressing all contentions. The Court held that incomplete consideration makes the order unsustainable and remanded the matter.
The issue involved denial of a personal hearing despite a specific request. The Court ruled that failure to provide such an opportunity violates statutory provisions and requires the order to be set aside.
