Reopening of the assessment was questioned by the petitioner. The principal reason for reopening was advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by the petitioner was not deductible in view of section 37, as petitioner was prohibited from advertising under the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
(i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) Filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
As far as the goods infringing the IPR (counterfeit goods) are concerned, once they are found to have violated the Rights of the rights holder, as per Rule 6, they become prohibited goods under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 111(d) squarely applies to prohibited goods which are imported. As confirmed by assessee, since the goods were not even ordered by them and were sent by mistake, confiscation of goods u/s 111(l) is correct and proper.
After framing of the assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act, tangible material came into the hands of the AO through the investigation wing and upon perusal of the same, he made independent inquiries and applied his mind and upon due satisfaction, he formed an opinion that, the income has escaped assessment.
Yasir Amin Khan Vs Abdul Rashid Ganie (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) Facts- Special Mobile Magistrate convicted a man and punished him with simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months in a cheque bounce case of INR 10 Lakhs and in addition, he was also held liable to pay compensation of INR 2 Lakhs […]
M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. & Anr Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Facts- The main issue raised was whether petitioners/purchasing HSD oil dealers who have been denied a refund of excess tax by the Respondent State Government of West Bengal which was admittedly collected by it from the petitioners through the […]
EIG (Mauritius) Limited Vs McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited (Calcutta High Court) Facts- An application for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award dated 19th June 2020 and an addendum dated 26th October 2020 moved by the petitioner (i.e., EIG Mauritius) against the respondent (i.e., McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited). However, the prayer for execution had […]
Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Limited Vs Dinkar T. Venkatsubramanian (Supreme Court of India) Facts- Resolution process was initiated against Amtek Auto Limited. Resolution plan submitted by Liberty came to be approved by NCLT, Chandigarh. However, the successful resolution applicant- Liberty didn’t act as per the approved resolution plan. An application u/s 60(5) read […]
Unik Traders Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Option to re-export imported goods, held to be prohibited goods, should be given to mitigate loss of importer Facts- It is the case of the petitioner that they are incurring Demurrage and Container Detention Charges for the containers to the liners as the imported consignments […]
I have to conclude that it was a genuine mistake of issuing wrong invoice which has been used by the CHA to file the Bill of Entry. The wrong invoice of USD 23750 was not given by the appellant, but the same was collected by CHA from the shipping liner. The appellant cannot be implicated for such mistake by imposing penalty. Moreover, the penalty imposed under Section 114AA is attracted only when there is deliberate falsification of documents in order to get undue benefit.
