Respondent was appointed in the kitchen of the petitioner, on acts of theft, misappropriation and fraud, articles of charges were issued. Notably, it is alleged that a Safal brand one litre oil sachet was found hidden on the tank bag of his two wheeler.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam condoned 102 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to CIT(A) with an observation that sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice.
ITAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act justified as no plausible explanation was given by the assessee for non-compliance of notices served by AO.
The appellants had filed a refund claim with Assistant Commissioner of Customs (CRS), Visakhapatnam for Rs.5,03,984/- on 10.08.2023. The said refund claim was that the appellant had paid the Duty twice due to ‘ICEGATE error’.
Delhi High Court observed that once the DGFT had proceeded to issue the MEIS scrip to the writ petitioners, they would have been justified in assuming that the issue of classification was neither questioned nor doubted.
CESTAT Chennai held that insulin manufactured using r-DNA technology would qualify as a mono component insulin and hence benefit of exemption notification under Notification No. 12/2012 – Cus. dated 17.03.2012 available.
Since the Revenue has not brought anything on record to controvert the findings of Ld. CIT(A), we don’t find any reason to interfere with his order. The ground taken by the Revenue is dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment unsustainable since assessee had explained the source of investment in FDs as being from his FD/OD account.
Telangana High Court held that the surrender of the rights results in impairment of profit making apparatus of the company and thus amount received under agreement for surrender of rights in capital assets is capital receipt. Accordingly, the appeal by revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that petitioner being unaware of initiation of proceedings are directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax and submit objections by treating impugned assessment order as show cause notice.
