ITAT Pune held that delay in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) needs to be condoned firstly by excluding COVID-19 pandemic outbreak period and further since rectification application was pending before CPC.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 towards unexplained cash made by the AO without bringing any concrete evidence on record incriminating the assessee is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69 deleted.
The appellant herein has merely utilized the credit and, to the extent that rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has not been shown to have been breached, is not concerned with the source of the credit.
NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of belated claim by liquidator needs to be challenged under section 42 of the IBC. Relief cannot be seeked by invoking provisions of section 60(5) of IBC as remedy u/s. 42 not restored.
ITAT Pune held that delay in filing audit report in Form 10CCB due to technical problem is justifiable and hence denial of claim under section 80IAC of the Income Tax Act not justified. Accordingly, order set aside to AO to consider audit report.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that involvement of accused and illegal coal levy matter is prima facie proved and the applicant is unable to fulfill the twin conditions for grant of bail as provided under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.
Chattisgarh High Court held that considering FIR and other material the accused involvement in illegal coal levy collection syndicate is prima facie proved and hence bail application u/s. 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is rejected.
ITAT Jaipur held that amount of sundry debtor recorded in books of account are not any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and hence doesn’t qualify as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty has to be paid when goods imported into an SEZ are not used for the authorised operations but are sold in Domestic Tariff Area. Accordingly, in such case, duty demand has to be raised as per the Customs Act.
The appellant is engaged in manufacturing of excisable goods falling under chapter 84 and are availing Cenvat credit of duty and tax paid on inputs and input services and are also registered u/s. 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 for discharging their service tax liability.
