Aveva Solutions India LLP Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) DRP Route Cannot Extend Limitation: Assessment Beyond Section 153 Limit Struck Down by ITAT Hyderabad Tribunal examined the core legal issue of limitation for passing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in a Transfer Pricing case. Assessee contended that once the assessment year is 2021-22, the statutory time […]
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that interest received under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is taxable under ‘Income from Other Sources’ per Sections 56(2)(viii) and 145B(1). The case clarifies post-amendment tax treatment of such interest.
The JCIT granted approval despite receiving only draft orders and no supporting evidence, demonstrating a mechanical process. The Tribunal held that such superficial approval violates judicial standards, leading to the quashing of all assessments.
Tribunal partially allowed Rs. 46.75 lakh cash deposit claim, accepting Rs. 11 lakh while remitting Rs. 35.75 lakh for verification, highlighting the importance of documentary proof for deposits during demonetization.
Observing that the tender had been cancelled and no proof of bid-rigging was provided, the Commission concluded that no competition concern arose and dismissed the information under Section 26(2).
The Tribunal found that sanction must come from the Principal Chief Commissioner when reopening is beyond the three-year period prescribed by the amended law. Because the approval was taken from the Pr. CIT, the reassessment lacked jurisdiction and was invalidated.
The Court ruled that cotton seed oil cake remains exempt when used as cattle feed, even if sold through traders. Taxability depends on end use, not the supply route.
The judgment confirmed that Section 11(2) of the EPF Act creates a first charge that overrides SARFAESI’s priority clause. Thus, provident fund contributions, interest, penalties, and damages must be paid before clearing secured creditors’ dues.
CESTAT Chennai held that royalty and licence fees paid by Xiaomi India under exclusive agreement is includible in the transaction value as per section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Accordingly, differential duty confirmed.
The Court addressed the delay in executing a Section 14 SARFAESI order and directed authorities to hand over possession within four weeks. The ruling ensures timely implementation despite administrative transfer issues.
