Madras High Court refused to interfere in order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing stoppage of increment of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes since there is no perversity in the orders. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that claim of petitioner to be treated as Additional Commissioner while being posted at ITAT so as to grant the higher salary cannot be accepted since nothing brought on record stating that duties of higher nature were performed.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely on account of non-prosecution by the assessee without disposing off on merits is not justifiable. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation on the business/commercial rights arising from the manufacturing contracts, supply contracts and maintenance contracts as claimed by the assessee is allowable. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards bogus purchases based on supporting documentary evidence, without carrying out necessary verification from GST department, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO for re-adjudication.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Quicklime is rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 2522 1000 since the purity of Calcium Oxide is less than 98%. Accordingly, order classifying under 2825 9090 set aside.
Delhi High Court held that implementation of OIO as confirmed by OIA and release of personal jewellery should be directed since mere prospect of filing a review cannot be a ground to hold back implementation of these orders.
CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘Gun Shape Metal Cigarette Lighters’ are not liable for confiscation u/s. 111(d)/ 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 since ‘cigarette lighters’ of gun shape remain as lighters by its functioning and not as replica of arms as defined u/s. 69A of the Weapons Act, 1990.
NCLT Chennai held that petition under section 7(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] is admitted as financial debt and default thereon is proved by the Financial Creditor. Accordingly, CIRP of Corporate Debtor admitted.
CESTAT Mumbai held that mis-classification/ mis-declaration of goods merely on the basis of statement of importer not justifiable as department failed to discharged burden of proof with proper evidence. Accordingly, appeal allowed in favour of appellant.
