CESTAT Ahmedabad held that benefit of segregation can be allowed only if the imported scrap contained impurities like iron, rubber, plastic, steel etc.
Bombay High Court held that if the reasons for re-opening the assessment are based on incorrect facts or conclusions, the notice issued under section 148 of the income Tax Act for re-opening cannot be sustained.
Delhi High Court held that exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Income Tax Act is available when government grant exceeds 50% of total receipts (and not total income) including voluntary contribution.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted conditional bail in case of revenue fraud of more than 4.61 crores as there is no justification for further pre-trial incarceration.
ITAT held that in view of non-cooperation on the part of the assessee before lower authorities for verification of it’s own documents/ claims cost of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the assessee to be deposited into Prime Minister Relief Fund.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that penalty on mediator acting as a broker in dealing with trading of advance licence which was forged or obtained fraudulently unjustified as it is not established that he was aware about forged/ fake nature of licence.
Delhi High Court held that as the appellants couldn’t be held to have been violated any provision of the Legal Metrology Act, they shouldn’t be held liable to pay a compounding fee. Compounding fee is not in nature of a tax or duty.
Calcutta High Court held that as and when statement from the third party recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act is relied upon then the opportunity of cross-examining such person is necessary to be given to the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that shares held as investment is taxable under capital gain. The same cannot be treated as business income on the ground that the assessee was participating in the business of JMMSSPL and had had transferred the controlling/business interest.
ITAT Delhi held that once a matter has been considered and decided by the ld.CIT(A), the very same issue cannot be the subject matter of consideration at all by PCIT in the revision proceedings either on substantive basis or on protective basis. Accordingly, revision order quashed.
