Bombay High Court held that there is limited scope of challenging the order of the settlement commission. Order of settlement commission cannot be challenged as if the order passed under an ordinary adversarial adjudication or as if the appellate power is being exercised.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Value of Imported goods) 2007 the value shall be the value of contemporaneous imports of identical goods. If such a value is not found, then as per Rule 5 the value shall then be the value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. Only if neither is available, Rules 7 can be resorted to.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the office memorandum for reconsideration of recommendation made by designated authority for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty.
Gujarat High Court held that provisions of section 179 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked simply because the directors of the private limited company have failed to deposit 20% of the demand raised in the assessment order to get stay from the appellate authority.
ITAT Bangalore held that orders passed u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act without mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and deemed to have been never issued. Hence TP adjustments made through the order is also invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that amendment to section 50C of the Income Tax Act stating that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration for such transfer is retrospective in nature and effective from 1st April 2003.
ITAT Chennai held that permit charges paid to Government to operate buses in the state is revenue expenditure. Accordingly Pondicherry permit charges paid to Government of Pondicherry to operate buses in the state of jurisdiction of Pondicherry is allowable revenue expenditure.
NCLT Delhi held that seeking of same reliefs in two parallel applications against the same party is barred by doctrine of Res Sub judice. Accordingly the applicant penalized with cost of Rs. 1 Lakhs for multiplicity of proceedings and wastage of precious judicial time.
Bombay High Court held that once the eligibility of complying with the provisions of section 194(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act is established, the Octroi Inspector is duty-bound in law to issue-certify such declaration to the Petitioner. However failure to provide a declaration of duty certified by the octroi officer would not render the Petitioner ineligible for a refund of octroi paid.
Karnataka High Court held that it is not necessary for each partner to contribute towards share capital for becoming partner in the partnership firm.
