CESTAT Chennai’s ruling in Balmer Lawrie & Co. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise: Central excise duty on metal containers returned as scrap analyzed. No penalty levied.
In Javed Karimkhan Patel vs. ITO, ITAT Pune rules that a son, who did not inherit estate of deceased assessee, cannot be a legal representative in income tax proceedings.
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of declared value based on NIDB data on similar goods unsustainable. Accordingly, differential duty demand and imposition of penalty thereon is unsustainable.
In a case involving Anand Persad Jaiswal, ITAT Delhi ruled that interest income earned by a non-resident Indian (NRI) from a foreign bank is not taxable in India under section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act.
In the Archana Rajendra Malu vs. ITO case, ITAT Pune upheld the denial of tax exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act due to sham transactions with paper companies.
In the Ravindra R.V. vs. DCIT case, ITAT Bangalore remits the denial of HRA exemption under Section 10(13A) back to the AO for reconsideration due to lack of salary breakup.
CESTAT Kolkata held that rejection of application for fixation of special rate under notification no. 32/99-CE and notification no. 31/2008-CE to new industrial units set up in North-Eastern States is incorrect and are in violation of law.
ITAT Mumbai held that order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act by merely remitting the matter back to AO without giving a finding that profit declared by assessee is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is liable to be set-aside.
Delhi High Court nullifies a GST registration cancellation order issued without disclosing a specific reason, upholding principles of natural justice.
In the Sonam Rajesh Rateria vs. ITO case, ITAT orders re-adjudication due to non-consideration of the Assessee’s unsigned reply to a notice under section 147.
