The Tribunal referred to HSN notes stating that Chapter 9616 does not cover dispersing appliances falling under Chapter 8424. Based on this reasoning, the imported soap dispenser was classified under CTI 8424 89 90.
Bombay High Court held that GST proceedings initiated against a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation were void ab initio. The Court quashed the demand order passed in the name of the amalgamating entity.
High Court directed authorities to examine claims relating to additional road work, carriage charges, GST differential, and deductions from running bills. The Court refrained from deciding the merits and ordered consideration of pending representations.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. Proper verification and rebuttal of evidence are necessary before sustaining additions under Section 69A.
ITAT Bangalore dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for delayed filing. The Tribunal ruled that routine official workload could not justify condonation of delay.
Bombay High Court observed that payments made while search proceedings are continuing may not automatically qualify as voluntary deposits. Court granted tax authorities an opportunity to take corrective steps if refund entitlement exists.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) should not be decided before disposal of the related quantum appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT Chennai held that an exporter cannot be taxed under reverse charge for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds where no service recipient relationship was established with the foreign bank.
The Tribunal held that two sale deeds represented the same transaction because one was merely an amendment correcting a survey number error. It directed deletion of the duplicate addition made by the Assessing Officer.
The Delhi High Court held that material recovered during a search can validly form the basis of reassessment proceedings even if the search is later alleged to be illegal. The Court ruled that proceedings initiated on the basis of such material do not automatically become void.
