Kerala High Court proceeding finalized against the petitioner based on certain computer records cannot be challenged before High Court as alternative remedies before the Appellate Authority is available before the petitioner. Matter involving adjudication of facts is not possible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Delhi held that it is settled law that the revenue cannot travel beyond the issues involved in the limited scrutiny cases, except in exceptional circumstances and hence addition confirmed beyond the limited scrutiny case is unsustainable.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that adjudicating authority cannot reject the documentary evidence without verifying the authenticity of the same. Rejection of the documents without ensuring the authenticity is gross violation of principle of natural justice which is untenable in law.
Kerala High Court directed the Centralized Processing Centre at Bengaluru to process the refund which are due to the petitioners which is not processed due to technical defect. Also directed to grant interest on account of delay in payment of refund.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the source and genuineness of receipt of shares from brother in USA is proved, addition of the same is unsustainable in terms of explanation 2 to section 56(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Also, there is no need for any ‘occasion’ for receipt of such gift from the brother.
Supreme Court held that period of limitation prescribed u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is to be applied while calculating period of limitation for claiming rebate of duty under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rebate claim rejected as filed beyond period of limitation of one year of relevant date
Karnataka High Court held that the expenses incurred towards stamp duty in connection with issue for public subscription of shares or debentures of the company is an allowable expenditure under section 35D of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that the Adjudicating Authority is not authorized to issue show cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 for violations of provisions in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973.
CESTAT Delhi held that Revenue has not brought any evidence on record to allege that the goods found and seized in the premises of the appellant are smuggled goods. It is onus of the Revenue to give evidence for allegation that the goods are smuggled in nature.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the coverage and taxability of foreign agent service which are alleged to have been received outside India needs proper examination and hence directed for de novo adjudication
