Delhi High Court held that petitioner eligible for exemption from Central Excise Duty Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 prior to 1st July 2017 is eligible for budgetary support under Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Regime
Bombay High Court directed customs department to come up with the solution to allow online amendment of shipping bill. So that transmitted amended shipping bill can be duly processed by DGFT.
Madras High Court held that provisions of section 174(2) of the CGST Act states that repeal as per subsection (1) shall not affect any rights, privileges or obligations or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the old Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that donation to veda pathashalas, veda pundits, medical assistance etc demonstrates the charitable activities carried on by the Trust. Accordingly, registration u/s 12A as charitable trust and approval u/s 80G granted.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiated revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises, is not permissible in law.
Madras High Court without expressing any opinion on merit, in the case of detention of Supari imported from Thailand, Court directed submission of an application under section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 for provisional release of goods.
ITAT Mumbai held that a start-up company incurring cost for branding of the company and other relevant expenditure which creates popularity which helps promotion of contents at the time of its product launch is allowable expenditure.
ITAT Bangalore held that credit of TCS should be given to the assessee which is finally and lawfully assessed to tax in respect of the corresponding income on which TCS has been collected irrespective of person in whose name TCS certificate is issued.
Madras High Court held that rejection of application u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 for release of confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine justified as the rejection was based on sound reasons.
ITAT Pune held that non-compliance with communication under Section 143(1)(A) of Income Tax Act 1961 due to IT-Website technical glitches was unintentional and beyond the control of appellant. Accordingly, exemption in the evince of Form No 10B duly available.
