CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on transport coordination services relating to employee movement is inadmissible for the period from 01.04.2011 onwards. Further, CENVAT on escort/security services may qualify as input services if the place of removal extends beyond the factory gate.
The Tribunal held that share transactions relating to an earlier assessment year cannot be taxed in a subsequent year. Since the Revenue failed to link them to AY 2018-19, the addition was deleted.
Madras High Court held that compensation paid to agent on account of loss due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rate is allowable as business expense under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, disallowance of the same is not justified and liable to be deleted.
ITAT condoned a 106-day delay considering the assessees senior citizen status and bona fide reasons. On merits, it restored the capital gains issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.
The Tribunal held that payment towards traffic violation is hit by Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) and not deductible. Though books were rightly rejected, estimation at 8% was moderated to 5% in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) as it was based solely on digital data found from a third party. It reiterated that suspicion or extrapolation without direct evidence cannot sustain tax additions.
The Tribunal held that mere transfer of funds to a state undertaking does not shift statutory TDS liability. Without proof of lawful discharge of TDS, penalty was sustained
The Tribunal held that denial of India–USA DTAA rates during processing under Section 143(1) was unjustified. It observed that Form 10F facilitates verification and does not create the right, making delayed compliance curable.
ITAT clarified that a statement recorded during search does not automatically become incriminating material. Without supporting documentary evidence, additions under Section 69A cannot survive.
The Tribunal emphasized that documentary evidence including bank statements and lender confirmations sufficiently explained the disputed credits. It held that no addition for unexplained money was warranted.
