Bombay High Court held that present case is not a case of lack of enquiry, however, it can be a case of inadequate enquiry. Accordingly, inadequacy of enquiry does not give jurisdiction to the CIT to invoke provisions of Section 263 prior to the insertion of Explanation 2.
CESTAT Delhi held that in case of amendment in Bill of Entry, period of limitation should be counted from the date of amendment and not from the date of assessment of Bill of Entry.
ITAT Surat held that issues raised by PCIT in his order u/s 263 are already examined by AO and AO passed the assessment order after calling for all the details and considering the reply/ documents. Accordingly, assessment order passed after due application of mind cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
ITAT Bangalore held that that the payment made by GIPL (Google India Pvt. Ltd.) to GIL (Google Ireland Limited) is not in the nature of Royalty or FTS under the Act. Accordingly, TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act not deductible.
Bombay High Court dismissed the present petition as petitioner has the option to file a statutory appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and there is no reason why petitioner cannot avail of the statutory remedy of appeal.
Suretex Prophylactics (India) Private Limited Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Karnataka High Court held that as on the date of recovery, there was no order/ adjudication made by the department quantifying the amount of tax/ duty payable by the petitioner. Accordingly, recovery of such amount is without authority of law and liable to […]
Allahabad High Court held that when public servant himself makes a demand and demand is accepted by bribe giver and bribe is paid by the bribe giver, it is a case of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CESTAT Delhi held that provisions of section 6 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (the 2020 Act) extends the time limit specified in the Tariff Act for issuance of the notification imposing anti-dumping duty.
CESTAT Mumbai held that tariff items within heading 8523 don’t offer scope for inclusion of ‘software’ of any type in the residual entry ‘others’ owing to the exhaustive enumeration in description in that heading.
Supreme Court held that irregularity in manner of effecting the service of order irrelevant when appellants had the knowledge of order passed against them.
