CESTAT Ahmedabad remanded the matter for reconsideration in case of classification of goods i.e. Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers under HSN code 63053200 or under 39231090.
Held that the petitioner is required to cross the bar of twin conditions as laid down under Section 45 of PMLA to be released on bail. In absence of the same, application stands dismissed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that value of free physician samples should be done as per rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Valuation under rule 8 of the 2000 Rules by adding 15% profit to the cost of manufacture not acceptable.
ITAT Pune held that that the amount surrendered under unrecorded stock has to be brought to tax under the head “business income” and no provision u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act is attracted.
ITAT Mumbai held that adjustment of notional interest for extended credit period to the associated enterprises unsustainable as assessee extended credit period to its non-associated enterprises without charging any interest.
ITAT Chennai held that delay in filing of tax audit report due to dispute between the directors of the assessee company is just a technical breach without any malafide intention. Hence, penalty u/s 271B not leviable.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention of the assessee as tax audit report submitted before completion of assessment proceedings.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim under section 11B filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is not maintainable. Here, relevant date was date on which appellant has voluntarily paid the short payment of service tax.
ITAT Delhi held that huge amount as interest free advances given to company which is neither relative/ partner nor connected with Assessee based on MOU which is neither on stamp paper nor stamped or registered creates a reasonable doubt. Matter remanded for further inquiry.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unsecured loan under section 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to discharge the primary onus and burden of proof of providing genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of creditors to the satisfaction of the A.O.
