In W.P.No.6541 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the Circular No.125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019 issued by the third respondent and for a further direction to the first respondent to reconsider the refund claim on its merits.
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘Receiver’ being part of the phone is classifiable under CTH 8517. Thus, classification sought to be made by the Revenue under CTH 8518 lacks merit and hence, order is set aside.
Delhi High Court held that principle enunciated in the criminal jurisprudence in respect of a ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ was erroneously applied to section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, order based on incorrect application of principle is liable to be quashed.
Kerala High Court held that revenue cannot proceed to re-assess, on the basis of subsequent CAG report, the assessment which was time barred by virtue of limitation provisions u/s. 25(1) of the KVAT Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that Epoxidised Soya Bean Oil is classifiable under tariff heading 1518 0039 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. Accordingly, duty demand of normal period with appropriate interest confirmed.
ITAT Surat held that interest paid in respect of business profit attributable to section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act is allowable. Accordingly, AO directed to consider direct nexus of interest paid with interest income attributable under section 80P(2).
Delhi High Court held that relaxation of conditions prescribed under rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules is discretionary power and is not amenable to judicial review unless the court finds that exercise is capricious, malafide, arbitrary and/or unreasonable.
Delhi High Court held that Nokia Network OY does not have Fixed Place Permanent Establishment in India [PE] and hence offshore supplies were not taxable in India. Appeal stands dismissed, accordingly.
Delhi High Court held the issuance of notice under section 28(4) of the Customs Act post issuance of notice under section 28(1) on similar factual matrix is bad in law. Thus, subsequent notice issued u/s. 28(4) is set aside.
Delhi High Court held that before undertaking a benchmarking of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion [AMP expenses], it was incumbent upon the TPO to have found that an international transaction had, in fact, occurred. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
