CESTAT Chandigarh held that Travel Agency Service, AMC Photocopy Machines and Broadband services used for the purpose of business and not for any personal use is eligible for CENVAT Credit.
Bombay High Court acquits CA Gordhanbhai Madhabhai Savalia, citing inordinate delay, lack of evidence, and legal complexities in professional misconduct case.
ITAT Delhi rules addition u/s 69A for excess jewelry during a search operation unsustainable as the assessee belonged to a wealthy family and received jewelry on occasions
Delhi High Court held the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as liable to be set aside as AO failed to demonstrate that explanation given by the assessee was deficient.
Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that as the seizure of shawls containing prohibited material took place in Delhi, therefore, Delhi Court will be having jurisdiction in the matter and not the court of Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh.
CESTAT Bangalore held that TDS amount paid to the Government by the appellant from his own account not to be included in the gross taxable value. Accordingly, service tax not leviable on the same.
Supreme Court rejected the bail application of Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, who has been alleged to have committed various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
CESTAT Bangalore held that in the absence of any evidence regarding removal of the goods before completion of the project, the benefit of Notification No.108/95 CE dated 28.08.1995 amended vide Notification No.13/2008 CE dated 01.03.2008 cannot be denied. Accordingly, demand set aside.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) without issuance of show cause notice or opportunity notice is against the principle of natural justice and hence untenable-in-law.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act merely based on ‘borrowed satisfaction’ as against statutory requirement of ‘independent satisfaction’ is bad-in-law.
