CESTAT Kolkata held that demand of excise duty in terms of rule 8 of the Valuation Rules not sustainable as correct higher duty already paid in terms of rule 4 of the Valuation Rules.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under section 35-F of the Central Excise Act 1944 not accepted. However, alternative prayer to grant extension of time limit for pre-deposit accepted and three months further time is granted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the income generated by the assessee cannot be held bogus only based on the modus operandi. To hold income earned by the assessee as bogus, specific evidence has to be brought on record by the Revenue. In absence of any specific finding, assessee cannot be held to be guilty.
Supreme Court held that it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided
ITAT Bangalore held that when the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing deduction claimed on account of write off of bad and doubtful debts relating to nonrural/urban advances.
Supreme Court held that amendment to section 2(17) of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 by omitting the word ‘blending of tea’ from definition of ‘manufacture’ stopped the benefit of exemption from payment of sales tax. Enactment of such amendment without appropriate justification by the Government brings in play doctrine of legitimate expectation.
ITAT Delhi held that violation of section 40A(3) sustained as the reply provided by the assessee is hypothetical and non-satisfying.
ITAT Bangalore held that bad debts relating to non-rural branches are allowable under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Hyderabad held that provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act are attracted on shares received by the assessee company on account of amalgamation.
ITAT Raipur held that mere non-reference by AO about the cash transaction entered into by the assesse doesn’t render the assessment order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, revisional proceedings u/s 263 unjustified.
