ITAT Chandigarh held that receipts of the assessee trust from its activities of sale of plots, flats and commercial booths and also its income earned form non-construction fee, transfer fee, penal interest and compounding fee, etc., are held to be entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the I.T. Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO was correct in concluding that the rate at which loan is taken by the Appellant cannot be taken as internal CUP to benchmark the loan given by the Appellant to its AE as there is a difference in credit rating of the Appellant and its AE.
ITAT Chennai held that assessee failed furnish any evidences to prove that there are negotiations between assessee and AEs with regard to marketing strategy, sales targets, credit period, etc. Accordingly, TPO/AO has rightly bench marked payment of agency commission as ‘nil’.
Calcutta High Court held that if a husband supplies the consideration money for acquiring property in the name of his wife, such fact does not necessarily imply benami transaction.
CESTAT Kolkata held that goods imported separately by two different importers cannot be clubbed for classification purpose. Goods imported by appellants not in CDK condition cannot be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 87038040.
CESTAT Chennai held that when Form-H has been produced to establish that the goods have been exported the value of such clearances would not be included in the aggregate value so as to deny the SSI exemption.
CESTAT Chennai held that claim of wrong availment of abatement via ST-3 returns doesn’t amount to mis-declaration. Hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and demand for normal period sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC in terms of section 36(1)(va) is incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return. Accordingly, adjustment is permissible under the scope of section 143(1).
CESTAT Chennai held that duty burden is shifted to the appellant unit only because facility under rule 12BB is opted. Also, penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unwarranted when duty liability is paid with interest.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that motor vehicles deployed to Central Deposit Yard Premises are not subject to Motor Vehicle Tax and are entitled to get exemption as contemplated in Motor Vehicles Act.
