The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be justified solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax, where the purchasing dealer acted bona fide and complied with statutory requirements.
The Chennai ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A), holding that the appellate authority failed to examine a prior Tribunal decision in the assessee’s own case involving similar issues.
The Chandigarh ITAT ruled that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii), holding that post-2009 amendments govern the issue despite claims for exemption under Section 10(37).
The Delhi ITAT held that Fees for Technical Services cannot be taxed under Article 22 of the India-Thailand DTAA merely because the treaty lacks a specific FTS clause. In the absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, such business income was held not taxable.
The ITAT Delhi held that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges are payments for maintenance services and not consideration for the use of premises. Accordingly, TDS on such payments is deductible under Section 194C and not Section 194-I.
The Delhi High Court admitted appeals challenging the Tribunal’s reliance on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for directing a fresh valuation exercise in a slump sale transaction. The Court framed substantial questions on the legality of invoking provisions allegedly inapplicable during the relevant assessment year.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a protective addition cannot be deleted merely because a substantive addition has been confirmed at the first appellate stage if the substantive addition is still under challenge. The ruling emphasizes that protective additions may continue until final adjudication.
CAAR Mumbai held that CKD kits comprising discrete electronic components could not be classified as motherboards under CTH 8473 30 20 because they lacked the essential character of finished motherboards at the time of importation.
The Court held that writ petitions need not continue once the GSTAT becomes operational and statutory appeal timelines are available. It directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy after complying with the prescribed pre-deposit requirements.
CESTAT Delhi held that overseas liaison offices functioning merely as communication channels cannot be treated as separate service providers to their Indian head office. The Tribunal set aside service tax demands on reimbursements and emphasized that one cannot provide services to oneself.
