Among the documents seized contained information pertaining to the Assessee and AO recorded his satisfaction that those documents have bearing on the determination of total income of the Assessee.
CESTAT Chennai held that order suspending CHA License set aside since proof regarding violation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 [CBLR] not available. Thus allegation not proved and hence CHA License restored.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that amount written-off towards non-recoverable advances given to employees which are incidental to business operations qualifies as deductible business expenses under section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Surat held that purchase of credit cards by making cash payments without providing explanation with regard to nature and source of money is liable to be added under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that goods are liable for confiscation u/s. 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 since goods are mis-declared with intention to evade imposition of anti-dumping duty under notification no. 51/2012-CUS(ADD) dated 03.12.2012. Further, penalty also imposed u/s. 114(A) of the Customs Act.
Delhi High Court held that proviso to section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act doesn’t mean that if gains are not included as book profits u/s. 115JB, the same are liable to be included as income for purpose of assessment of tax under normal provisions.
NCLAT Delhi held that a Decree Holder falls within the purview of the Financial Creditor under the Code, if the decree is based on a financial debt. Accordingly, dismissal of petition u/s. 7 of IBC not justified.
Delhi High Court held that inordinate delay of 9 years in prosecuting the case is not justified since the same is much beyond the time limit prescribed under section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, delay not condoned and hearing notice quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act quashed since enquiry already conducted by AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that under Customs Act interest on sanctioned refund is admissible after three months from the date of application and not from date of Commissioner (A) order.
