The petitioner raised bills on respondent No.4 based on the works executed from time to time, TDS @ 2% on the total value of the bills were recovered by respondent No.4 for the value of works executed in the State of Telangana and Maharashtra.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition on the basis of loose papers and documents found from the premises of third party is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is dismissed since addition not based on substantial evidence.
CESTAT Delhi held that regulation 10(n) doesn’t mandate Customs Broker to verify correctness of certificate or registration issued by other concerned government officer. Thus, revocation of customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit are set aside.
In W.P.No.6541 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the Circular No.125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019 issued by the third respondent and for a further direction to the first respondent to reconsider the refund claim on its merits.
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘Receiver’ being part of the phone is classifiable under CTH 8517. Thus, classification sought to be made by the Revenue under CTH 8518 lacks merit and hence, order is set aside.
Delhi High Court held that principle enunciated in the criminal jurisprudence in respect of a ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ was erroneously applied to section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, order based on incorrect application of principle is liable to be quashed.
Kerala High Court held that revenue cannot proceed to re-assess, on the basis of subsequent CAG report, the assessment which was time barred by virtue of limitation provisions u/s. 25(1) of the KVAT Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that Epoxidised Soya Bean Oil is classifiable under tariff heading 1518 0039 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. Accordingly, duty demand of normal period with appropriate interest confirmed.
ITAT Surat held that interest paid in respect of business profit attributable to section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act is allowable. Accordingly, AO directed to consider direct nexus of interest paid with interest income attributable under section 80P(2).
Delhi High Court held that relaxation of conditions prescribed under rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules is discretionary power and is not amenable to judicial review unless the court finds that exercise is capricious, malafide, arbitrary and/or unreasonable.
