ITAT held that in this case disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act has not been found from the books of accounts of the assessee. Rather the plea is that the suppliers have not maintained proper books of accounts.
whether the supply of precast manhole using the steel and cement within the scope of recipient is a supply of service of supply of goods? What should be appropriate classification of the same?
In re Airports Authority of India (GST AAR Rajasthan) Q.1 Whether the transfer of business by the Airport Authority of India to the M/s. Adani Jaipur International Airport Limited be treated as Supply u/s. 7 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST), viz-a-viz Rajasthan State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (RSGST) […]
CESTAT Delhi held that when a government company is involved there will be a rebuttable presumption regarding nonexistence of any of the ingredients mentioned in the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act. Accordingly, extended period of limitation couldn’t be invoked.
CESTAT Delhi held that as electricity is not excisable goods under section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hence rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR) would not be applicable.
ITAT Chennai held that even though certificate in Form no. 10CCB was not filed along with return of income, but same was filed before the final order of assessment was made, hence the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act.
Conclusion: Issue regarding claim of depreciation could not be decided until dispute regarding capitalization of expenses in assessment order was decided. Therefore, the same was restored to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee,
CESTAT Delhi held that if tax is payable under RCM, however, service provider has duly collected the service tax and deposited the same to the Government. Demanding service tax under RCM from the service receiver will amount to double taxation and hence such demand not sustainable.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act merely based on the SMS or WhatsApp messages without any corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Delhi held that Clad with compatible non-clad aluminium foil didn’t had any commercial supplies in the domestic industry during the period of investigation and hence anti-dumping duty on the same is not leviable.
