CESTAT Allahabad held that tribunal has no jurisdiction to prescribe the rate of interest which is prescribed by the Government of India in terms of Notification issue under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
ITAT Mumbai held that surplus/ income from pension scheme/ business is exempt under section 10(23AAB) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that post amendment to provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act as effective from 1st April 1989, the Act does not require the assessee to establish that the debts have in fact become bad before writing off. Accordingly, addition with regard to disallowance of claim of write off of bad debts duly deleted by CIT(A).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) unsustainable as interest bearing funds were not utilized for non-business purpose and interest free advances were made in the course of business.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation invoked as appellant suppressed provision of service falling under the category of ‘Erection, Commissioning and Installation’ service with intention to evade payment of tax.
In present facts of the case, the Honble Supreme Court have given directions to the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the RTI Act,
CESTAT Delhi held that order passed without assigning any reasons is non-speaking order and, accordingly, the same is bad-in-law and is liable to be set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that merely billing customers for booking of space does not make one a Freight Forwarder. Therefore, the appellant whose activity has failed to establish his credential as a Freight Forwarder is found to satisfy the classification of Business Support Service. Accordingly, demand sustained.
In present facts of the case, the Honble High Court while dismissing the Petition have observed that the order passed in Appeal which has not been challenged by the Petitioner would attain finality, and therefore no fault can be found with the learned Tribunal seeking to enforce the Award in accordance with the law.
In present facts of the case, the Appeals were dismissed by Honble Supreme Court and have affirmed the Order of the Arbitral Tribunal wherein de-canalisation order by the Government was not communicated within time.
