CESTAT Mumbai held that when cenvat credit of only that quantity of input is availed which was intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods, there is no question of invoking provisions of rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
ITAT Chennai held that as per Sec.9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, salary income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India only if it is earned in India in respect of services rendered in India. Hence, salary income as accrued to the assessee for work performed in UK would not be taxable in India.
NCLT Mumbai held that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the management/ownership of the Corporate Debtor shall be considered as fresh, even if the directors/promoters of the Corporate Debtor (MSME) remain the same.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the provisions of service to the overseas entity by an entity situated abroad does not merit liability under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, set aside tax recovery from M/s Singapore Airlines as deemed provider of online information data base access or retrieval service.
CESTAT Chennai held that when goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.
ITAT Bangalore held that Share Application Money should not be included in the value of investments. Accordingly, for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the Share Application Money should be excluded.
CESTAT Mumbai held that with the recovery of duty, imports stand regularized and hence section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 becomes inapplicable. Accordingly, confiscation and penalty set aside.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that confiscation of already exported goods not possible under section 113 of the Customs Act because once the goods are exported, Indian Customs has no control over the goods and therefore, they cannot be confiscated.
Delhi High Court held that based on principle of initial interest confusion trademark infringement proved for using RAJNIPAAN, similar to take to well-known trademark RANJIGANDHA, even though no actual sale is finally created as a result of the confusion.
ITAT Delhi as regards contention of notice not properly serviced held that as per postal authorities explanation the assessee has refused to take notice and such refusal to take a notice is a good service.
