CESTAT Ahmedabad held that services of transportation of goods by a person other than GTA are clearly exempt under Section 66D (P)(i)(A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Held that the goods were brought in the factory premises without having proper invoices/documents with intent to clear them clandestinely. Accordingly, confiscation and the redemption fine as well as the penalty imposed u/s. 11 AC of Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is absolutely justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain tax inadvertently paid by the wife needs to be refunded with interest and the same needs to be recovered from the assessee as the same transaction cannot be charged to tax twice.
Meghalaya High Court held that extended period of limitation as per proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 not invocable as there was no element of deceit or intention on the part of the assessee to evade duty.
CESTAT Chennai held that exemption of Basic Customs Duty under notification no. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 read with notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 available as there is no violation of conditions. Further, demand proposed on misconception of facts and law is unjustified.
Held that as a party to the joint-venture, obligations and responsibilities discharged by co-venturer cannot be brought under service tax levy. Accordingly, demand of service tax set aside.
Delhi High Court held that amount received from subscription of e-journals cannot be treated as royalty as right in respect of copyright to the concerned subscribers not granted. Hence, the same is not taxable in India.
NCLT Mumbai held that lien created prior to the initiation of the ‘Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process cannot sustain during moratorium under section 14 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
ITAT Kolkata held that once the jurisdiction of the assessee is transferred from Delhi to Kolkata, every action for all the assessment year lies with ITO, Kolkata. Accordingly, notice issued u/s 148 by ITO, New Delhi is bad and illegal.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 272A(1)(c) not warranted as reasonable cause shown for delay in providing the details by the assessee and later in the end, the assessee had shared all the relevant details.
