Sikkim High Court held that as per guidelines of the Budgetary Support Scheme, if any unit undergoes for relocation, expansion and change of ownership, it will not be eligible under the Budgetary Support Scheme.
ITAT Delhi held that fringe benefit tax is an allowable deduction in computing book profit as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that ‘brand names’ falls within the scope of intangible assets and, accordingly, are amenable to deprecation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that the documents relating to acknowledgement claiming benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act can be accepted even at the appellate stage. Further, acknowledgment of debt in the balance sheet has been held to be a valid acknowledgment for the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
ITAT Chennai held that Once, nature of expenditure and source is explained, then the question of making additions towards refund money as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act does not arise.
ITAT Chennai held that acquiring jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act without fulfilling the requirement of satisfaction note in case of searched person is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Gujarat High Court held that denial of benefit under Vera Samadhan Yojna-2019 alleging that full payment against the outstanding amount intimated not paid is unjustifiable in law as amount reflected in intimation erroneously showed higher outstanding amount.
CESTAT Delhi held that when the demand of duty has been settled under SVLDR Scheme, the imposition of penalty would fail on simple ground that if the appellants had applied under the said scheme, they would have paid ‘nil’ duty.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as appellant has not exited from Special Economic Zone (SEZ), they are not eligible for clearing capital goods under the prevalent Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme).
Delhi High Court held that the petitioner is liable to pay excise duty on leftover stock of liquor transferred by two erstwhile licensees, both the erstwhile licensees and the Petitioner are one and the same. The manufacturer and seller of the liquor was only one i.e. the Petitioner and hence excise duty payable.
