CESTAT Kolkata held that Indian currency cannot be confiscated under Section 121 of Customs Act without clear evidence connecting it to smuggled goods. Tribunal ruled that investigative statements alone are insufficient to justify seizure of cash as sale proceeds of smuggled gold.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a money recovery suit after finding that the lender failed to produce a valid licence under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. The Court held that Section 13 bars courts from granting decrees in favour of unlicensed money lenders.
CESTAT ruled that the Department failed to consider ST-3 returns and service tax already discharged by the assessee. The Tribunal held that duplicate tax demands arising from erroneous calculations could not survive.
The Hyderabad ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) could not delete unexplained cash deposit additions merely on the basis of submissions and audit reports without supporting documents proving business transactions.
The CESTAT Delhi held that multifunction protection devices remained classifiable as relays because their primary function continued to be protection and control of electrical systems. Additional monitoring and recording features were treated as ancillary and did not affect exemption eligibility.
CESTAT Delhi held that un-invoiced allocations made by a foreign parent company were not taxable as no services were rendered and no consideration was paid. The Tribunal ruled that mere cost allocation entries in internal systems cannot attract service tax.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that co-operative banks qualify as co-operative societies for purposes of Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal allowed deduction on interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks following Gujarat High Court rulings.
High Court held that use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 129(3) does not by itself create mandatory consequences. Court emphasized that legislative intent, object, and consequences of non-compliance must be examined.
The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that properties belonging to an alleged abettor cannot be attached under the PBPT Act unless those properties are independently proved to be benami properties. The Tribunal clarified that the Act permits attachment only of benami properties held by a benamidar or beneficial owner.
The Karnataka High Court held that once confiscation orders are passed under Section 130 of the CGST/KGST Act, the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. The Court dismissed appeals seeking modification of interim release conditions for detained goods and vehicles.
