CESTAT Chennai held that as transfer of technical knowhow not a condition for sale of capital goods, hence, technical knowhow fee not to be included in the assessable value of imported goods.
Bombay High Court held that extended period of limitation not invocable as there was no suppression, misrepresentation or fraud committed by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that plausible view of AO cannot be held as erroneous by ld. CIT(E) without conducting necessary enquiries or verification. Accordingly, initiated of revision jurisdiction u/s 263 on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises, which is not permitted.
Soumyendra Nath Banerjee Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court didn’t entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under section 25 of PMLA Act, 2002 available. Facts- The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of provisional attachment […]
Lupin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that general principles of interpretation of the exemption notification that it has to be construed strictly shall not really apply to the SEZ units which are otherwise exempted from the liability of the various duties under the […]
Allahabad High Court held that provisions of section 15 of the GST Act doesnt prescribe valuation of goods on the basis of eye estimation. Accordingly, impugned order based on such valuation is not sustainable.
Bombay High court held that rejection of SVLDRS-1 application alleging wrong Commissionerate is unjustified as at the time of filing application, petitioner didn’t had option to file or change the Commissionerate.
ITAT Bangalore held that provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied when explanation given by the assesse constitutes a reasonable cause. Accordingly, concluded that bonafide business transaction cannot be considered for levying the penalty u/s 271D of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure incurred towards Corporate Social Responsibility are specifically disallowed as per explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
NFRA’s investigations revealed that the appointment of none of the 33 branch auditors was approved at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of DHFL, as required by the Act. The audit firm and CA Mathew Samuel accepted the appointment, portrayed themselves as “Branch Statutory Auditor” in all communications with the Company and CAS, and issued an […]
