ITAT Delhi held that disallowance on ad-hoc basis without any specific allegation merely on the basis of general remarks and observations is unsustainable as assessee has successfully demonstrated that the expense has been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
ITAT Jaipur held that amount paid towards settling the property dispute is absolutely necessary to affect the transfer and accordingly the same is allowed as expenditure covered by provision of section 48 of the Income Tax Act.
Gujarat High Court held that Tribunal cannot abdicate its duty of deciding the matter on merits till the outcome of pending matter before Apex Court. Section 35C(1) of the the Central Excise Act, mandates the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals on merits.
ITAT Mumbai held that distribution of samples of infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods is prohibited under section 4 of Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992. Accordingly, the same is not allowable as business expenditure.
CESTAT Chennai held that minor deficiency in the processing may not ipso facto make the leather as not fully finished. Accordingly, satisfying the conditions contained in Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009, the same is freely exportable.
Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) Vs R.P. Cargo Handling Services (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner is require to ‘issue’ (ant not ‘serve’) a notice, under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), within a period of ninety days of the receipt of the offence report. Facts- The […]
Delhi High Court held that Betal Nuts known as ‘Boiled Supari’ is classifiable under Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Act and not under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provision for Solid Waste Disposal Expenses made by the assessee is not a contingent liability but is an accrued liability and therefore claim of assessee is allowable.
ITAT Chennai held that as per assigning reasons for delay in filing audit report under section 44AB is venial technical breach and accordingly penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim was rejected on sole ground of non-production of original documents. However, as original documents are misplaced, as per provisions of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, attested copies of invoices should be considered as proof of production of document.
