Karnataka High Court held that non-commercial educational signage is not covered within the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and hence advertisement tax u/s. 134 not leviable on the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that exemption from BCD and CVD, and IGST would be payable @ 5% as provided for in List 1 of the IGST Rate Notification is available on import of HIV-VL test kits. Accordingly, appeal allowed and order set aside.
Madras High Court dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of an effective and efficacious alternative remedy under section 15T of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 [SEBI Act].
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that amendment to Section 3 and Section 7 of the A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939 being within the purview of the main Act and hence assent of Hon’ble President of India not required.
CESTAT Delhi held that bonafide declaration of value of goods cannot be concluded as suppression merely because the value was ultimately found to be incorrect. Accordingly, penalty u/s. 114A and 112 of Customs Act set aside.
Madras High Court held that classification of lightings, fixtures and fittings, etc. as ‘capital goods’ by licencing authority [DGFT] cannot be otherwise for Customs Department. Thus, customs department cannot take stand at variance with DGFT.
CESTAT Allahabad held that condition for furnishing Bank Guarantees for star export houses has been relaxed by Circular No. 32/2009-Cus. dated 25.11.2009. Accordingly, Commissioner directed to provisionally release of seized goods.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation of amalgamating company cannot be disallowed merely for non-filing of Form No. 62 which is only directory. Thus, non-compliance of the same would not disentitle the assessee to claim carry forward losses to be set off. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified since PCIT correctly observed that the very basis of disallowance of depreciation was on an incorrect understanding of the facts by AO. Accordingly, revision order upheld.
ITAT Delhi held that claim of interest u/s. 24b of the Income Tax Act was duly examined during original as well as reassessment proceedings. Thus, the plausible view having been taken by the AO cannot be held to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.
