CESTAT Kolkata held that valid specific license required for import of old and used worn clothing articles. Accordingly, redemption fine @10% and penalty @5% imposed for failure to comply with licensing requirement.
CESTAT Kolkata held that keeping in view the common parlance usage of material as bed sheets and the same can be sold in market as bed sheet, the goods are classified under Customs Tariff Heading 6304 and not under Customs Tariff Heading 54.07.
Calcutta High Court allowed deduction under section 80IA(iv) of the Income Tax Act for development of Mechanised Port Handling System. Thus, deduction u/s. 80IA(iv) available in case of infrastructural development of port.
ITAT Bangalore held that addition u/s. 69A unjustified as cash deposited in bank account is from business income and the same is already considered under the Profits & gains of business or profession.
ITAT Delhi held that issue relating to allowance of depreciation on non-compete fee is debatable and it is well settled law that rectification provision u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if the issue is debatable.
Calcutta High Court held that no interest liability or penalty can be thrust on the petitioner since full amount of tax already paid as per orders referred to in Section 128A(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017 and hence order deemed to be concluded.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that attachment of account like Cash Credit or Overdraft by exercising powers conferred under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act untenable as bank doesn’t become a debtor.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained income sustained since assessee failed to substantiate the nature and source of cash deposits in bank.
Madras High Court held that passing of order without considering reply and without granting opportunity of being heard is against the principles of natural justice and accordingly the order is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that that non-payment of dues for a period of three months is not a prescribed ground under section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration. Thus, order set aside.
