CESTAT Chennai held that for the purpose of charging export duty the assessment of Iron Ore for determination of Fe contents shall be made on the basis of Wet Metric Ton for period prior to 1st May 2022. Accordingly, appeals allowed and orders set aside.
The ITAT Panaji sent the disallowance of agricultural income back to the AO for fresh review, finding that the lower authorities ignored substantial documents and confirmations provided by the assessee. The ruling confirms that tax authorities must properly verify factual material and grant a fair hearing before disbelieving a farm income claim.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that External Development Charges (EDC) paid by a real estate developer to HUDA are statutory government levies, not payments for the use of land. Following High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal confirmed that Section 194I (TDS on rent) is not applicable to EDC payments.
ITAT Delhi held that payments received by a US company for software licensing and support services cannot be treated as royalty or fees for technical services. Since the assessee had no permanent establishment in India, such income was classified as business profits and held non-taxable under the India-USA DTAA.
The SAFEMA Tribunal upheld the attachment of land registered in a tribal’s name, finding it a benami transaction under the amended Act. The ruling confirmed that purchasing restricted tribal land using funds provided by a non-tribal beneficial owner for future commercial resort development is illegal circumvention.
The ITAT Mumbai set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order, holding that the AO’s decision to allow Section 80G deduction on voluntarily disallowed CSR expenses was a plausible view. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court principle that Section 263 revision cannot be invoked merely for holding an alternate opinion.
NCLAT Delhi held that resolution plan of Dorni Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd. stands approved as material irregularity is not established. Accordingly, appeals are allowed and orders of adjudicating authority set aside.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that the surcharge rate on the residual income of a trust must be restricted to 15%, not 37%. This decision follows the principle that the surcharge rate is governed by the Finance Act provisions, even if the base tax rate is the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR).
CESTAT Delhi held that refund claim of excess CVD paid after completion of one year from date of payment of duty as well as the date of relevant judgement is barred by limitation. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
The ITAT upheld the classification of a Rs.5 crore loss on the sale of shares as a capital loss, not a business loss, because the NBFC consistently held the shares as non-current investments for over three years. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee’s accounting treatment and the mandated sale under Supreme Court directions confirmed the investment motive.
