ITAT Delhi held that rejection of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method for valuation of share price unjustified as that the methodology adopted was a recognized method of valuation and the Revenue was unable to show that the assessee adopted a demonstrably wrong approach.
ITAT Jaipur held that invocation of section 263 of the Income Tax Act unjustified as all the details were furnished by the assessee during scrutiny assessment and assessment was completed after detailed enquiry.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the proprietorship firm without even recording the statement of the proprietor of the firm is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Chennai held that boiler in unassembled form is removed in several lots on different dates doesn’t mean that parts only and not the whole boiler is cleared from factory. The parts are to be classified as complete machine under 8402.10. Hence, exemption vide Sl.No.84 of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 as amended duly available.
Gujarat High Court held that misconduct charges against the auditor not sustained stating the Statute provides remedy of appeal is only available to a member of ICAI against the decision of the Board Discipline or Disciplinary Committee imposing any penalty. The same is not available to the complainant or informant.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of interest free security deposit sustained as the same is not refunded to the Developer even after lapse of more than seven years by merely stating that the Developer had not provided completion certificate.
Delhi High Court held that show cause notice issued after the expiry of the prescribed period under section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 would not survive in law.
CESTAT Chennai held that when no time limit is prescribed under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 the department cannot reject the request for conversion of shipping bill.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Cenvat Credit availed on the strength of duty paying documents cannot be denied alleging that invoices issued by manufacturer were not genuine.
Explore CESTAT Chennai’s decision in Emerson Process Management Chennai case. Learn about duty on intermediate goods, Rule 6(6) of CCR 2004, and implications for manufacturers
