Madras High Court held that proceedings initiated under section 129 of the CGST Act invalid as detention order and notice was not served within the prescribed time limit.
CESTAT Kolkata held that CENVAT Credit of steel items used for the purpose of setting up of coal washery plant is available applying the user test principle.
CESTAT Mumbai held that used mild steel (MS) plates industrial significance only as waste and scrap which is the feedstock for melting in furnaces and hence classifiable as waste and scrap.
CESTAT Mumbai held that when cenvat credit of only that quantity of input is availed which was intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods, there is no question of invoking provisions of rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
ITAT Chennai held that as per Sec.9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, salary income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India only if it is earned in India in respect of services rendered in India. Hence, salary income as accrued to the assessee for work performed in UK would not be taxable in India.
NCLT Mumbai held that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, the management/ownership of the Corporate Debtor shall be considered as fresh, even if the directors/promoters of the Corporate Debtor (MSME) remain the same.
CESTAT Mumbai held that the provisions of service to the overseas entity by an entity situated abroad does not merit liability under section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, set aside tax recovery from M/s Singapore Airlines as deemed provider of online information data base access or retrieval service.
CESTAT Chennai held that when goods are held not confiscatable under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, then it can be reasonably held that the import was not prohibited.
ITAT Bangalore held that Share Application Money should not be included in the value of investments. Accordingly, for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, the Share Application Money should be excluded.
CESTAT Mumbai held that with the recovery of duty, imports stand regularized and hence section 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962 becomes inapplicable. Accordingly, confiscation and penalty set aside.
