ITAT Chandigarh held that surplus funds of a charitable institution are being held in a fiduciary capacity hence can never be used for any other purpose except for charitable activity. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO for fresh adjudication.
The adjudication is conducted as per the mechanism outlined under SEBI Act and the rules framed thereunder. Notably, the provisions of the SEBI Act or its rules do not mandate the issuance of a separate demand notice before recovery.
In the case on hand, the petitioners claim that MFDs are freely importable items, whereas the Customs Department claims that they are restricted items which require certification from Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and prior authorisation from DGFT, before importing them.
Gujarat High Court held that departmental officers who issued summons or arrest memo are not required to be cross-examined by the petitioner. Accordingly, non-granting cross-examination to that extent is justifiable.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act without mentioning the specific instance of misreporting in the notice or in order will vitiate the penalty order. Accordingly, penalty deleted and appeal allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that taxability of service receipt amounts in terms of India- Thailand DTAA needs fresh consideration since relevant documents are not submitted. Accordingly, appellant is directed to submit all the details before DRP.
ITAT Raipur held that non issuance of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act and non serving of such notice to the assessee as per valid mode of transmission makes the assessment order arbitrary, bad in law. Accordingly, order quashed and appeal allowed.
Delhi High Court held that GST order set aside as GST notice was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ and the same was not brought to knowledge of the petitioner. Accordingly, matter remanded back and petitioner directed to furnish reply.
CESTAT Chennai held that active collusion of appellant i.e. Custom House Agent [CHA] with High Sea Seller not proved hence penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 unwarranted in absence of intention to evade payment of duty.
ITAT Chennai held that salary income for services rendered in China is not taxable in India. Accordingly, benefit of exemption under Article 15(1) of the DTAA between India-China. Thus, order set aside and appeal allowed.
