Supreme Court held that provisions of section 71 of the Customs Act doesn’t apply when goods were not warehoused inside the notified public bonded warehouse but were unloaded outside the notified area but within factory premises and kept under a shed on permission granted by Superintended.
ITAT Bangalore held that payment made by Google India Pvt. Ltd. to Google Ireland Limited (assessee) for sale of online advertisement space is not taxable in India as the same cannot be regarded as royalty or FTS.
Delhi High Court held that petitioner has approach the court only a few days before the time for completion of assessment u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act would expire.
ITAT Guwahati held that the exemption of 10(26) of the Income Tax Act is available to the individual members of the Scheduled Tribe and the said benefit cannot be extended to a partnership firm.
Calcutta High Court held that Held that there cannot be enhancement of compensation amount in an appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal in the absence of cross-objection of the claimants.
Bombay High Court held that MVAT Authorities would not have priority in the recourse to the assets that are secured in favour of the secured creditor and registered in priority with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI).
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as assessee has established the genuineness of purchase and sale of shares by producing documentary evidence and transaction of purchase and sale of shares is done via banking channel.
CESTAT Chennai held that imported goods being handheld machines popularly known as brush cutter is classifiable under CTH 84672900 and parts of brush cutter is classifiable under CTH 84679900.
ITAT Mumbai held that the ESOP expenses claimed by the assessee is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that passing of an order in the name of an entity which has merged with another entity will make the order void ab initio. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and hence liable to be quashed.
