ITAT held that approval by the Principal Commissioner was invalid where more than three years had elapsed from the assessment year. Since Section 151(ii) required sanction from PCCIT/CCIT, the reassessment was declared void.
ITAT held that once identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditor were established, addition under Section 69 was unsustainable. The creditors disclosure before the Settlement Commission supported the assessee’s claim.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that CENVAT Credit in respect of input / input services used for construction of building which itself is to be used in the provision of output service of Renting of Immovable Property is admissible. Accordingly, order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
Calcutta High Court held that Bending and Bundling services cannot be claimed under the heading Clearing and Forwarding Services. Accordingly, demand of service tax under tax bracket of Clearing and Forwarding services to that extent quashed.
ITAT held that under the amended law, reopening after three years is barred where alleged escaped income is under ₹50 lakh. The notice issued under Section 148 was declared invalid and reassessment proceedings were quashed.
Madras High Court held that affiliation fee collected by the Universities does not fall within exemption hence such fees collected by the University from the Colleges as affiliation fees is amenable for levy of GST.
ITAT Chennai held that disallowance in terms of section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D restricted to the extent of investment which yielded exempt income. Accordingly, disallowance restricted and appeal partly allowed.
ITAT held that Excel sheets recovered from a third party cannot justify addition without direct evidence linking the assessee. In absence of corroboration and cross-examination, the cash investment addition was deleted.
The ITAT reaffirmed that Section 2(22)(e) cannot extend the definition of shareholder to a concern receiving the loan. The deemed dividend, if attracted, must be taxed in the hands of the substantial shareholder alone.
The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on investigation wing information without independent application of mind is invalid. Mechanical reasons cannot justify reassessment under Section 147.
