ITAT Ahmedabad rules on the treatment of cash receipts from sale of gold/gold ornaments in case of Abhishek Prakashchand Chhajed Vs ITO.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Hydraulic Study Department of Calcutta Port Trust were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 71/80-Cus dated 26.03.1981 and Notification No. 152/94-Cus dated 13.07.1994. Notification exempts goods which are imported by research institution from payment of customs duty.
ITAT Chennai held that the termination of the call option merely relinquishes the right of to buy shares, however, there is no element of non-compete obligation inherent in the agreement and hence provisions of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act cannot be triggered.
ITAT Raipur held that AO having jurisdiction over the case passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act without issuing notice u/s 143(2). Accordingly, the matter quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction as notice u/s 143(2) was issued by non-jurisdictional AO.
Supreme Court held that ‘tinted glass sheets’ is liable to be tax as ‘goods or ware made of glass’ covered within entry no. 4 of notification no. 5784 dated 07.09.1981 and hence the same is taxable.
Dive into the Narayan Sharma vs. Commissioner of Customs case at CESTAT Chandigarh, involving the absolute confiscation of smuggled gold. Learn about the facts, statements, and documentary evidence leading to the decision.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that refund under rule 16 of Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 allowable on account of change in constitution of firm into a private limited company.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that gratuity premium paid to LIC was to be treated as business expenditure and the same is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that enhancing the price of imported goods by invoking rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules without any evidence is unjustified and bad-in-law.
CESTAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings against Customs Broker alleging violation of regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2018 unjustified as he is not the party to alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation.
