CESTAT Mumbai held that that de novo adjudication order has been set aside by the Tribunal and the subsequent demands raised through Section 73(1A) as well as its conformation having been based on the previous conformation orders, the same is liable to be set aside and we do so.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act on account of difference between circle rate and actual amount paid for purchase of land as the land in question was a capital asset.
Delhi High Court held that the computer software which are necessary and integral for the working of hardware are eligible for depreciation at the rate of 60% instead of 25%.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the Appellant is merely supplies the chassis to body-builder and receives the body-built vehicle from the body-builder. Accordingly, Appellant is not the manufacturer of the body-built vehicle. Hence, demand of duty unsustainable.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that benefit of notification no. 01/10-CE dated 06.02.2010 cannot be denied as commercial production from expanded capacity commenced on or after 06.02.2010.
Kerala High Court held that order passed under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act without granting an opportunity of being heard as required u/s. 148A(b) makes the order unsustainable in law and hence is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment framed u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act based on material found during search on third party without following the mandate of section 153C of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
Kerala High Court held that as petitioner failed to reply to the show cause notice and failed to attend the hearing. Thus, petitioner chose not to provide any evidence in respect of his claim of input tax credit. Hence, writ not entertained.
CESTAT Kolkata held that benefit of preferential rate vide Notification 53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011 not deniable as Certificate of country of origin from Malysia Chamber of Commerce for subsequent import of identical goods afterward submitted.
Delhi High Court held that the notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act should have been issued before the period of limitation as prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
