CESTAT Delhi held that change of name from “safranal” to K-100 does not amount to be an act of mis-declaration as there is no evidence of evasion of customs duty.
Calcutta High Court held that show cause notice not specifying the charge against the assessee is bad-in-law. Accordingly, initiation of the penalty proceedings is vitiated.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards alleged bogus purchases unsustainable as cross examination of person based on which AO was drawing inferences was not allowed and payments were made through banking transactions.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that sub-contractor is liable to pay the Service Tax even if the main contractor has discharged the liability. Accordingly, service tax payable on ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Service’.
CESTAT Chennai held that extended period of limitation not invocable as department was duly aware about what was being imported and the purpose thereof.
Held that internal CUP [internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method] is the most appropriate method for undertaking the determination of Arm’s Length Price.
Delhi High Court held that in respect of Special Audit remuneration under section 142(2D) of the Income Tax Act invocation of provisions of MSMED Act not tenable and completely misplaced. Accordingly, the Income Tax Act would thus prevail over the provisions of the MSMED Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that confiscation of goods cannot be sustained as imported goods are provisionally released after complying with the necessary requirement of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee has discharged the onus cast under section 68 of the Act with respect to receipt of share application money. Accordingly, addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act not sustained.
CESTAT Bangalore held that imposition of penalty unsustainable as service tax is demanded due to mis-interpretation of service being classified as joint venture agreement and not a franchisee service.
