CESTAT Bangalore held that Reflective Glass not found in notification no. 4/2009 dated 06.01.2009 is not exempt from levy of anti-dumping duty. Thus, anti-dumping duty leviable on reflective glass imported from China.
ITAT Indore held that addition u/s. 68 on account of bogus long term capital gains unsustainable as the alleged transaction is not found recorded in the books of accounts including the Dmat account of the assessee. Hence, addition on the basis of assumption unsustainable.
Patna High Court held that direction of Collector for prohibition on removal of broken stone chips before expiry of extended period unjustifiable in law. Accordingly, authorities directed to allow petitioner company to lift entire amount of broken stone material.
ITAT Jaipur held that requirement of TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Income Tax Act on payments made to Eco Development Committee remanded back to AO with a direction to relook on various aspects.
CESTAT Bangalore held that since the smartra immobiliser is only a security device to prevent a vehicle from being stolen it is rightly classifiable under Chapter Heading 8708 as parts of motor vehicle.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted the bail to the petitioner/dealer involved in the matter of fraudulently obtaining VAT refund based on false and fabricated documents as there is unexplained huge delay and investigation is already complete.
ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of Rs 37 crores of exempt capital gain in a non-descript listed company operated by the accommodation entry provider, who has confessed that he has provided accommodations entries to the beneficiaries, including assessee remanded back to the file of AO for further enquiry.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand of service tax on amount received by cricket player R. Ashwin from M/s. India Cements Ltd. under IPL Playing Contract is unsustainable in law.
Madras High Court held that circulars dated 16.03.2021, 05.08.2021 and 01.04.2021 mandating compliance of provisions of section 194A and 194N of the Income Tax Act by co-operative societies cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court held that an agreement for providing manpower to perform maintenance services is not a contract of sale but is a contract for service under the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
