Madras High Court held that goods cannot be confiscated and vested with the Government. Thus, court ordered provisional release of imported consignment of prohibited black pepper u/s. 110A of the Customs Act on satisfying specific conditions and requirements.
Bombay High Court held that application of Enforcement Directorate u/s. 4 read with Section 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018 praying that the Applicant (Mehul Choksi) be declared as a fugitive economic offender is acceptable as requirement of Section 4 duly complied.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest on trade receivables u/s. 92B(1) of the Income Tax Act could be determined by applying SBI short-term deposit rates.
ITAT Jodhpur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained credit unsustainable as genuineness of the depositors provided by filing confirmation, affidavits, bank statement, etc.
Delhi High Court held that amendment of shipping bill u/s 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 allowed based on the documentary evidences which was in existence at the time the goods were exported.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received towards service rendered by the assessee is in connection with installation/erection of plant and machinery involved in mining of natural resources fall within the exceptions provided under Article 12(5)(f) and 12(5)(g) of India – Portugal DTAA and hence not taxable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that interest payment on late payment of TDS is not compensatory in nature and is not allowable as deduction u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Held that prior to 1-4- 2024 there was no bar on assessee claiming exemption under section 10 (23EC) and under section 11 and 12 of the act. Accordingly, contribution received from commodity exchange and members thereof is exempt u/s 10(23EC) of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Bangalore held that benefit of exemption notification no. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and 12/2012-CE available to the motor vehicle manufactured as ownership of chassis was transferred after the sale of the same by VIPL to Appellant.
CESTAT Chennai held that the demand for paying an amount of 5% /10% /6% on the value of exempted clearances unwarranted when the appellant has reversed the proportionate credit of inputs used in manufacture of exempted products.
