Calcutta High Court held that if a husband supplies the consideration money for acquiring property in the name of his wife, such fact does not necessarily imply benami transaction.
CESTAT Kolkata held that goods imported separately by two different importers cannot be clubbed for classification purpose. Goods imported by appellants not in CDK condition cannot be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 87038040.
CESTAT Chennai held that when Form-H has been produced to establish that the goods have been exported the value of such clearances would not be included in the aggregate value so as to deny the SSI exemption.
CESTAT Chennai held that claim of wrong availment of abatement via ST-3 returns doesn’t amount to mis-declaration. Hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and demand for normal period sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC in terms of section 36(1)(va) is incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return. Accordingly, adjustment is permissible under the scope of section 143(1).
CESTAT Chennai held that duty burden is shifted to the appellant unit only because facility under rule 12BB is opted. Also, penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 unwarranted when duty liability is paid with interest.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that motor vehicles deployed to Central Deposit Yard Premises are not subject to Motor Vehicle Tax and are entitled to get exemption as contemplated in Motor Vehicles Act.
Gujarat High Court held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai held that the TPO is not correct in arriving at the ALP as NIL on the ground that the need and benefit test is not satisfied by the assessee without giving any contrary findings with regard to the various documents including the TP study submitted by the assessee.
Held that the Hyderabad office is not required to act as an input service distributor (ISD) as there is no head office-branch office basis relation between the Hyderabad office and other offices. Accordingly procedure under Rule 4A of the Services Tax Rules, 1994 not required to be followed.
