ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act without satisfying the twin condition i.e. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue not satisfied. Hence, order passed u/s 263 set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that merely on the basis of the bill of lading it cannot be inferred that the goods were originated from China as certificate of origin of Malaysia not proved wrong or fake.
Bombay High Court held that show cause notice should be adjudicated within a reasonable time and there should not be an egregious, unjustified and unexplained inordinate delay.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of manufacturing of tugs and barges cannot be classified as supply of manpower and hence cannot be taxed under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service.
Kerala High Court held that clarification order accepts classification of Clohex and Clohex Plus as medicament, based on the fact that they were manufactured under a drug licence. However, there is no reason discernible from clarification order as to why Senquel-AD Mouthwash which is presented in a similar form cannot also be classified as a medicament.
Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and directed department not to act in furtherance of order passed by appellate authority till the time appellate tribunal in term of Section 109 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is constituted.
ITAT Delhi held that law does not confer any power on the Assessing Officer to either withdraw or modify or substitute one assessment order passed by him earlier with another assessment order subsequently.
Patna High Court held that as Petitioner failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding huge fixed assets and cash available with him, bail application of the Petitioner is rejected.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act is leviable on person who causes to be made, signed or used any false declaration or fraudulent document
Delhi High Court held that since no income chargeable to tax arose in the hands of the non-resident, as per the provisions of the Act, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) unjustified.
