CESTAT Chennai held that the demand of duty alleging that cost of free supply material has to be included in the assessable value is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Rajkot held that denial of deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act on the allegation of non-filing of Return of Income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act is unjustified.
Delhi High Court held that the fee earned by the respondent/ assesse (M/s. Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee) from regulating agricultural produce (which includes fish, poultry, and eggs) falls within the scope of Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that as petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 not maintainable as there was an agreement on procedure to be followed for appointing an arbitrator.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as goods deposited in bonded warehouse for re-export from the said warehouse and shipping bills have also been filed for export, allegation of misdeclaration of goods cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Chennai held that benefit of notification no. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 not available to machine dipped match splints as power is used in the manufacture of match splints.
CESTAT Chennai held that tubular tower being parts of wind operated electricity generator is eligible for exemption under notification no. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.
ITAT Surat held that AO already examined the issue and took a plausible view that addition should not be made. Accordingly, revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 unsustainable as order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that issue of leviability of tax on liquidated damages is to be decided as per clarification provided by CBIC vide circular no. 178/10/2022-GST. The circular mainly clarifies that liquidated damages are mere flow of money from party who causes a breach of contract to party who suffers loss due to such breach, then such payments do not constitute consideration for supply and are not taxable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that placing reliance on the statements unjustified as no opportunity to cross-examine is granted and even the test of Section 9D of Central Excise Act is not passed.
