CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Heading No.3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy 2009-2015 allows import of Urea through STC, MMTC and Indian Potash Limited. Hence, goods cannot be held liable to confiscation. Consequently, no penalty u/s 112 can be imposed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty without granting an opportunity of being heard is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly cannot be sustained.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment sustainable on failure of true and full disclosure of demanded material on the part of the petitioner.
CESTAT Delhi held that appellant produced all the evidence and documents contending that mobile phones were purchased from open market in Delhi. However, customs department failed to satisfy the onus that the said mobile phones were smuggled in nature. Accordingly, goods released.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of any receipt of new information or reference to any new material on record, it can be concluded that re-opening of assessment is merely because of change of opinion and the same is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that as common area maintenance charges are not forming part of the actual rent paid to the owner by the assessee, TDS on the same is deductible under section 194C @2% and not under section 194.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when investigation has already been commenced prior to filing of an application before Advance Ruling Authority (ARA), the authority should not admit the application and thereafter issue its ruling. Accordingly, the order is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that payment made under the Sales or Return agreement are not in nature of ‘works contract’ but ‘purchase of goods’ and hence not liable to deduct tax at source under section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Bangalore held that disallowance merely considering the provisions of section 144C(8) of the Income Tax Act without verification of details furnished by the assessee is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that the scholarship to a student who was neither an employee nor associated with the company for any commercial or business purpose doesn’t satisfy the provisions of section 36 and section 37 and hence not allowable as deduction.
