Summit Aviation Private Limited obtained financial assistance from respondent no.3, Punjab National Bank, for the purchase of helicopters. This financial assistance was secured through a hypothecation agreement dated 12.05.2008.
CESTAT Delhi held that responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client. Thus, customs broker cannot be held responsible if client moves to new premises and doesn’t inform authorities.
Karnataka High Court held that once the dispute is referred to the Labour Court or the Tribunal, the Government will have no power to pass interim order under Section 10-B. Further, passing of interim order without hearing the management is against the principles of natural justice.
CESTAT Delhi held that FOB value is the transaction value and customs officer has no right to interfere/ modify the FOB value of the goods. Thus, appeal of exporter’s allowed and order set aside.
The assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking of Government of India and is in the business of Non-Life Insurance, The assessee offers insurance covers for large projects like power plants, petrochemical, steel and chemical plants.
During the course of search and seizure operation, several incriminating documents related to the assessee were found and seized from the residential premises of Shri Prashant Bongirwar.
Kerala High Court held that section 12AA empower the Principal Commissioner to pass order cancelling registration granted u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act and for ordering the same Principal Commissioner is not required to await decision of Assessing Authority.
CESTAT Delhi held that Amendment Notification no. 36/2021-Customs dated 19.07.2021 cannot be said to be retrospective in nature. Accordingly, orders are liable to be set aside and all the appeals are allowed.
ITAT Bangalore held that the assesse is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54 of the Act if the assesses able to establish the fact that the construction was commenced within the period prescribed of 3 years under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune held that since income of minor child is clubbed in the hands of assessee, TCS collected on the same needs to be credited in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, assessee cannot be deprived from the credit of TCS. Thus, appeal allowed.
