Telangana High Court held that the Registration of a document does not create any title. The action of non-registration of a document under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 does not prevent a person of the right to enjoy his property.
CESTAT Allahabad held that legal ownership and acquisition of gold proved via documentary evidence on the other hand, the Department has not been able to provide any iota of evidence to show that the seized gold bar was smuggled. Thus confiscation under Section 121 Customs Act is unsustainable
Supreme Court held that Notification No. 2 of 2006 dated 01.03.2006 didn’t specify the goods falling under CET SH 2403 9930, i.e., ‘zarda/jarda scented tobacco’, but it covers the goods falling under CET SH 2403 9910 i.e., ‘chewing tobacco’.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that non-conveying of grounds of arrest in writing is not sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, arrest of the present petitioner illegal and cannot be sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that commission taxed @2% of the amount of accommodation entries provided by the assessee has not been made on ad hoc basis, however, the same is as per prevailing market rate. Accordingly, the addition is sustained.
CESTAT Mumbai held that that de novo adjudication order has been set aside by the Tribunal and the subsequent demands raised through Section 73(1A) as well as its conformation having been based on the previous conformation orders, the same is liable to be set aside and we do so.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act on account of difference between circle rate and actual amount paid for purchase of land as the land in question was a capital asset.
Delhi High Court held that the computer software which are necessary and integral for the working of hardware are eligible for depreciation at the rate of 60% instead of 25%.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Appellant is merely supplies the chassis to body-builder and receives the body-built vehicle from the body-builder. Accordingly, Appellant is not the manufacturer of the body-built vehicle. Hence, demand of duty unsustainable.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that benefit of notification no. 01/10-CE dated 06.02.2010 cannot be denied as commercial production from expanded capacity commenced on or after 06.02.2010.
