Madras High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on case of the person from whom gold was seized without independently considering the case of the petitioner is not justifiable. Accordingly, court directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner.
ITAT Pune held that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained interest income is already reflected in the return of the deductee and tax is already paid on the same. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted bail to the petitioner caught in alleged illicit drug on the ground of medical condition of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ allowed and bail granted.
Orissa High Court held that writ against blocking of Input Tax Credit [ITC] under rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] not entertained as reply of the petitioner is pending adjudication. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that fine imposed for non-furnishing of financial documents on directors of the company is justifiable, however, compounding fine amount reduced from Rs. 1.50 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakhs due to severe financial difficulty faced by the directors.
Madras High Court directed petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax amount and granted time to furnish reply to the GST show cause notice. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
Delhi High Court held that in absence of transfer of title or sale of property, no incidence of tax can be invoked. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 on account of sale not justifiable in absence of any transfer. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that Input Tax Credit which is barred by limitation in terms of section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is available in case the same is within period prescribed in terms of section 16(5) of the Act.
Respondent/Assessee is a limited company. Original assessment order was passed on 31.08.2006. The assessment was reopened and was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 30.12.2009 qua computation of capital gains regarding assessee’s sale of its land and building.
CESTAT Mumbai held that imposition of penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act not justified in absence of any dummy export or any criminal intent involving evasion of duty. Accordingly, provisions are not applicable where export goods have actually been exported.
