CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) can only be made applicable against the manufacturer/service provider or the person who availed the allegedly inadmissible credit and accordingly recovery of CENVAT Credit against Input Service Distributor unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that TDS is not deductible at the time of grant of ESOP but is deductible at the time of option is exercised by employees of the assessee and shares are allotted to the employees.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that denial of deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act alleging non-completion of some blocks unjustified as separate building planning permission were obtained by assessee from Local Authority namely AMC for each Block as a separate housing project.
ITAT Delhi held that assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without new tangible material is unsustainable and hence the entire reassessment is null and void.
CESTAT Chennai held that where the value has already been split as per the state law and VAT has been paid on the goods component of the composite works contract, no service tax can be levied on such component again taking recourse to Rule 2A(ii) of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards difference of share premium u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act by rejecting the valuation determined by the assessee without referring the matter for valuation to DVO is unjustified. Matter remanded for referring the same to DVO.
Learn about Harish Gupta Vs DCIT case at ITAT Delhi where subsequent intimation of DIN number without quoting it on assessment order is deemed invalid.
Learn about GST exemption for printing services of examination materials like question papers, OMR sheets, and results processing.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in “exceptional circumstances” if a corporate debtor is an MSME, it is not necessary for promoters to compete with other resolution applicants to retain control of the corporate debtor.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Enforcement Officer appointed under Section 3 of FERA, 1973 was authorized to file complaint under provisions of FERA even after getting repealed by the virtue of S. 49 of FEMA under the heading ‘Repeal and Savings’.
