High Court while deciding the appeal heard the counsel for the parties, yet did not frame any substantial question of law arising in the case; in the absence of any discussion or/and the reasoning/ground as to why the order of Tribunal did not suffer from any illegality and why the grounds of Revenue were not acceptable and why the appeal did not involve any substantial question(s) of law or though framed could not be answered in Revenue’s favour, the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional errors and therefore, legally unsustainable for want of compliance of the requirements of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 260A.

CIT v. Rashtradoot (HUF)

  Section 260A   Direct Taxes
In an appeal agreement the levy of late fee under section 234E the CIT(A) cannot travel beyond the subject-matter of the appeal, which in the present case was as to whether fee under section 234E can be levied or not; and not the question, whether the return of TDS filed by the assessee was non est in law? CIT(A) had no power in the appeal in the present case to declare the return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est in law.

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal v. Asstt. CIT

  Section 251(1)   Direct Taxes
applicant can apply rule 28 of the GST Rules, 2017 to determine the value of supply of goods for supply of goods by one distinct entity (factory/depot) as defined under section 25(4) of the CGST Act to another entity having same PAN (factory/depot).

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., In re

  Section 98 of CGST Act, 2017   GST
As electricity has all the necessary trappings of "articles" or "things", the benefit of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia), cannot be denied to an entity engaged in business of generation and distribution of power.

Pr. CIT v. NTPC Sail Power Co. (P) Ltd.

  Section 32(1)(iia)   Direct Taxes
Passenger service fee was a statutory levy and assessee airline was only acting as a conduit between embarking passengers and the Central Government Agency, therefore, assessee was not required to deduct tax under section 194J from payment of passenger service fee.

Asstt. CIT v. Spice Jet Ltd.

  Section 194J   Direct Taxes
As decided in assessee’s own case in CIT v. M/s. E-City Project Construction (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 149 of 2015 and Others, 18-7-2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5002 (Bom-HC), intention of assessee was to commercially exploit the property by way of complex commercial activities and it was not a case of letting out the property simplicitor, therefore, it was treated as business income.

Asstt. CIT v. E-City Projects Construction (P) Ltd.

  Section 14   Direct Taxes
Where Pr. CIT rejected assessee’s application for stay of recovery of demand in a cryptic manner and directed assessee to deposit 20% of amount demanded merely relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1914, dt. 21-3-1996, matter was remanded back to Pr. CIT for disposal afresh in accordance with law.

Shriram Finance v. Pr. CIT

  Section 220   Direct Taxes
Since transactions of purchase and sale of shares were supported and evidenced by Bills, contract Notes, Demat statements and bank statements, etc., and when transactions of purchase of shares were accepted by AO in earlier years, the same could not be treated as bogus simply on the basis of some reports of investigation wing, etc. therefore, AO was directed to allow the claim of assessee in respect of long-term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. KAFL and delete addition under section 68

L.K. Prahladka, HUF v. ITO

  Section 68   Direct Taxes
Leave and licence charges and services charges earned by assessee engaged in the business of building and leasing premises of special nature as per the requirements of clients had to be taxed as business income and not as income from house property

ITO v. Balwas Realty & Infrastructure (P) Ltd.

  Section 14   Direct Taxes
Prohance-D cannot be categorized as diabetic food. "Prohance-D (Chocolate)" is a food preparation which is meant to be consumed by people by dissolving the same in water or milk. It is thus, a "food preparation", squarely covered under Chapter Heading 2106 of the Customs Tariff.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., In re

  Section 98 of CGST Act, 2017   GST
1 2