CESTAT Chennai held that royalty and licence fees paid by Xiaomi India under exclusive agreement is includible in the transaction value as per section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Accordingly, differential duty confirmed.
DRAT Chennai held that mortgage created on the basis of copy of the sale deed is not legal. Accordingly, mortgage created in favour of the Punjab and Sind Bank based on copy of the sale deed is held invalid.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be approved since explanation of assessee is rejected without verification and also Standard Operation Procedures [SOP] provided in CBDT instruction No. 3/2017 dated 21/02/2017 also not followed. Accordingly, matter set aside to file of AO.
Gauhati High Court held that arrest in fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit [ITC] cannot be termed as illegal since the arresting authority has complied with all the mandates provided by the CGST Act, 2017 and the BNSS, 2023.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69A/69B relying solely upon unverified excel sheet, loose sheet and uncorroborated statements, has traversed beyond the permissible confines of evidentiary inference. Accordingly, addition is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Indore held that the registered sale-deed would relate back to and have effect from 26.03.2013 falling with previous year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 and hence the impugned transaction of sale was taxable in AY 2013-14 and not in 2014-15. Accordingly, reopening of assessment for AY 2014-2015 is illegal and unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai held that mere technical defects in supplier invoices are not sufficient to disallow ISD distributed credit. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential benefits.
Calcutta High Court held that reversal of CENVAT Credit made was voluntary and doesn’t tantamount to pre-deposit within the meaning of the pre amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
NCLT Mumbai held that mere issuance of debit notes or raising of reconciliation issues at a later stage does not establish a “pre-existing dispute” within the meaning of Section 8(2)(a) of the Code. Accordingly, application u/s. 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code admitted as debt and default proved.
DRAT Chennai held that person aggrieved by an order of the recovery officer can prefer an appeal before Debts Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, DRAT disposes of this Appeal by sending the appeal to DRT.
