CESTAT Delhi held that unless there is an undertaking by the principal manufacturer that they would discharge the duty liability (notification no. 83/94-CE), the job worker is liable to discharge duty on the clearances from the premises of job worker.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee has option to determine the method of valuation and the AO has no power to reject the method resorted by the assessee as no infraction of methodology has been brought out by the AO.
NCLAT Delhi held that liquidator is obliged to consider the average of the value arrived as per Regulation 35 of the CIRP Regulation, 2016.
ITAT Chandigarh held that disallowance for late deposit of employees’ share of PF/ ESI contribution to relevant funds beyond prescribed due date under respective Act is duly sustainable in law.
ITAT Hyderabad held that when there was an apparent mistake in the order of the AO in accepting the returned income instead of substituting the same with the assessed income there was an apparent error rectifiable under section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount cannot be treated as unexplained and accordingly addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as amount duly recorded in books of account and offered to tax as professional fees.
ITAT Pune held that no proper justification offered by the assessee in respect of difference of turnover reported in audit report and ITR. Accordingly, addition towards the said difference sustained.
Delhi High Court held that notice of proceeding under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act was required to be issued to the owner or the persons from whom the goods were seized.
ITAT Delhi held that amendment to section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act and section 43B of the Income Tax Act brought in Finance Act, 2021 is prospective in nature i.e. effective from 01.04.2021 and not retrospective in nature.
ITAT Lucknow held that benefit of exemption cannot be disallowed merely because the same was claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act instead of claiming u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act. Such mistake is inadvertent and typographical mistake.
