ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated concludes that the notice is issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind and accordingly imposition of penalty is bad in law.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that as per Rule 3 of General Rules of Interpretation specific description is to be preferred over a general description. Accordingly, CTH 9027 is more specific for instrument – I Stat System along with cartridges, etc. than CTH 9018.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that demand of duty on freight by including the same in assessable value not sustainable as factory gate is the place of removal.
Madras High Court held that confirmation of Dabba trading is based on inadmissible piece of evidence. Accordingly, prosecution becomes a futile exercise and hence quashed.
Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed and set aside as original assessment was completed after considering all the facts and material.
NCLT Chandigarh held in contract of guarantee, the liability of the principal borrower and guarantor(s) is joint and several. Even if, either the principal borrower or guarantor has been discharged then the other party would not stand discharged automatically till the liability is met out or discharged.
ITAT Delhi held that the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act can be allowed only if the employees’ share in the provident fund and ESI fund is deposited by the employer before the due date stipulated in respective Acts.
CESTAT Chennai held that in agreements where one party is non-resident, it is responsibility of other Indian resident party to meet TDS obligation arising on account of the respective agreement.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Dharamshala is duly eligible for house tax exemption as covered vide relevant notification dated 30.09.2003 issued by Haryana Urban Development Department even if it charges nominal rent for conducting marriage, as the same doesn’t amount to commercial purpose.
Bombay High Court rejected the pre-arrest bail as premature as the apprehension of the applicant that he will be arrested is without any basis.
