The ruling holds that decorative PVC, PU and PS wall panels retain their character as plastic sheets under CTH 3921. Classification as builders’ ware under CTH 3925 was rejected due to lack of structural function.
An application seeking classification clarity was withdrawn after confirmation that customs proceedings on the same issue were underway. The ruling reiterates the procedural bar on advance rulings in such cases.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] without providing pre-decisional hearing and without providing reasons to believe is not justifiable and hence order is liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal examined whether cost of acquisition could be fixed on assumptions. It held that government-notified MVR rates must be considered and ad-hoc estimates cannot replace statutory valuation methods.
ITAT Hyderabad held that limitation for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act would be only 3 years from the end of the assessment year since material suggesting escapement is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 is beyond period of limitation of three years hence quashed.
Delhi High Court held that employee’s contribution deposited after statutory due date under relevant Acts is disallowed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act even if the same is paid before filing of income tax return. Accordingly, question is decided against appellant.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the appeal without a reasoned order violated appellate duties. All issues were restored for de novo consideration with directions to ensure due opportunity.
Authorities taxed refund interest as business income by linking it to earlier PE years. The Tribunal ruled that without a PE in the year of receipt, the income cannot be treated as effectively connected and must enjoy DTAA relief.
The Tribunal emphasized that exemption cannot be denied on assumptions. It restored the case to the AO for limited verification, reinforcing evidence-based assessment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained money. The Tribunal held that prior withdrawals from the bank sufficiently explained the deposits, warranting deletion of the addition.
