CESTAT Chennai held that tyres, tubes and flaps secured by plastic carry straps are not placed in a package within the meaning of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Hence, provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inapplicable.
Bombay High Court held that import of cosmetic goods without Central Drugs Standard Control Organization license are considered prohibited goods hence the same are liable to be confiscated even if the same were meant for re-export.
Telangana High Court held that in cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC since transactions are spread across several years issuance of consolidated notice permissible. Writ petition is dismissed due to availability of efficacious alternative remedy of appeal u/s. 107(1) of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80G of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely on the ground that the payment also formed part of CSR expenditure under the Companies Act.
ITAT Chennai held once the AO has conducted inquiry, examined replies and adopted a legally sustainable view, the same cannot be treated as erroneous. Accordingly, invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable in law.
Supreme Court held that section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 putting an age limit of three months on the age of the adoptive child, for the adoptive mothers to avail maternity benefit is violative of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution respectively. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
Supreme Court held that Bank couldn’t act contrary to mandate given by customer since funds belonged to the customer. Thus, act of Bank in transferring the funds to the owner of the vessel cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court held that diversion of funds raised through preferential allotment for purposes other than those stated in offer document/prospectus/notice establishes as fraud and the same cannot be cured by consequent shareholder ratification.
ITAT Kolkata held that professional fees for works related to acquisition of new unit or expansion of existing undertaking is governed by provisions of section 35D of the Income Tax Act. Thus, since there is a specific provision u/s. 35D for amortization of certain preliminary expenses, the recourse could not have been had to the residuary provision of section 37(1) of the Act.
Supreme Court held that Legislative Assembly Speakers acts as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution and doesn’t enjoy the constitutional immunity from judicial scrutiny under Article 122 and 212 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
