ITAT Delhi held that rejection of valuation merely on the ground that on the date of issue of shares, DCF method was not there in Rule 11UA of the ITAT Rules is unjustified in as much as AO failed to demonstrate that methodology adopted by the assessee was not correct.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in case of production of a new retail sale price, duty is to be calculated on pro-rata basis, in the present case only four days, when the production has taken place.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that in case of production of a new retail sale price, duty is to be calculated on pro-rata basis, in the present case only four days, when the production has taken place.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the charges paid for services rendered by the FTOs (i.e. Foreign Telecommunication Operators) cannot be taxed under head ‘telecommunication services’. Accordingly, demand set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that maintenance charges received from corporate members is exempt on principle of mutuality. The said receipt doesn’t become taxable merely because it was subjected to deduction of tax at source.
Gujarat High Court held that the role of the applicant’s firm in Gujarat State Land Development Corporation (GSLDC Scam) was very limited and was not actually connected with the field work and only to the extent the audit of vouchers and records.
ITAT Kolkata held that exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act not eligible in respect of long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares of penny stock companies listed with Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE).
ITAT Raipur held that additional depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act on heavy vehicle not admissible when vehicles are used in own business and not on hire.
CESTAT Delhi held that receipt of service doesn’t qualify as Manpower Supply Service and hence demand of service tax from service receipt under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) applicable to Manpower Supply Service unsustainable in law and hence liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the issue involved is of pure interpretation of legal provisions and classification of services therefore, in absence of any no mala fide intentions and suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of service tax, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.
