The Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under section 69 cannot survive when the Revenue fails to establish that the alleged investment was made during the assessment year in question. Documentary evidence showing the transaction belonged to an earlier year remained uncontroverted.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules does not mandate that remanufactured goods be supplied back to the original customer. The Tribunal allowed the credit and ordered refund of the demand.
The Court observed that the documents produced indicated a sale of immovable property, which is not subject to GST. The matter was sent back to the tax authorities for a fresh decision on merits.
The Madras High Court remitted Section 74A GST orders for fresh adjudication after taxpayers argued that their replies to DRC-01 notices were not considered. The Court directed a 10% pre-deposit and mandated reconsideration on merits.
The Tribunal observed that payment of licence fees for exclusive use of demarcated spaces amounted to renting of immovable property. Consequently, the transaction attracted forward charge provisions rather than reverse charge liability.
CESTAT held NHAI’s transfer of toll collection rights to contractors was a taxable service, not a sovereign function, and upheld service tax demand.
ITAT Lucknow held that disallowance of interest expenses cannot be sustained without evidence showing that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
SC dismissed Revenue’s plea after Gujarat HC held that even proposed additions would not alter MAT liability, defeating escapement claims. HC found all material facts were disclosed during scrutiny assessment; SC left the order undisturbed.
Finvin Investor Private Limited Vs Orix Leasing and Financial Services Limited (NCLAT Delhi) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, disposed of two appeals arising from the same order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, concerning an application filed under Sections 43, 66, 67 and 70 of the […]
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to additional interest under Section 244A(1A) because the Assessing Officer failed to pass the appeal effect order within the statutory timeline.
