ITAT Bangalore held that reimbursement of salary for seconded employee cannot be regarded as ‘Fee for technical services’ (FTS) under India-US Tax Treaty (DTAA).
ITAT Kolkata held that addition u/s 68 unwarranted as AO failed to conduct an independent enquiry post submission of documents by the assessee relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit-worthiness of the subscribers.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act leviable as assessee failed to substantiate the source as well as the manner of the undisclosed income.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that issuance of notice in Form GST ASMT-10 under rule 99 of A.P. Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 read with Section 61 of A.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Deputy Commissioner without authorization of Chief Commissioner lacks authorization and hence liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT Credit due to procedural irregularities/ lapses is unsustainable in law. Substantive benefit cannot be denied due to procedural irregularities/ lapses.
CESTAT Delhi held that as appellant failed to produce document proving discharge of customs duty liability, it can easily be concluded that gold so procured has passed the customs area in concealed manner and accordingly the same is smuggled goods.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271B not leviable for mere delay of one day as such delay didn’t have any deliberate intention. The delay if any is on account the reasons on the technical letches on the portal and the same is venial in nature.
JCIT vs Amandeep Singh Bhatia: ITAT Indore dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming CIT(A)’s deletion of Rs. 2,48,02,084/- addition as income from other sources. Detailed analysis provided.
Arvi Lights challenged a revision under section 263 of the IT Act regarding cash deposits during demonetization. ITAT Delhi found AO’s inquiries sufficient, supporting the original assessment.
CESTAT overturned the decision to demand excise duty based on the differential quantity of goods as per the ER-1 returns and the audited books of accounts. The tribunal determined that the discrepancy between the values mentioned in the RG-1 and the physical stock statement provided by the assessee was inherently inaccurate, as both values were estimated.
