CESTAT Delhi held that G-Watch i.e. Smart Watch is classifiable under 8157 6290 and not under CTH 9102 1900. Accordingly, benefit of entry serial no. 955 of notification no. 15/2009-Cus. dated 31.12.2009 doesn’t apply.
Delhi High Court held that revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked only in case of no enquiry. The revisionary power cannot be invoked in case of inadequate enquiry.
CESTAT Kolkata held that denial of benefit of project import regulations and the concessional rate of duty despite clearly taking note of factual position is certainly an error of judgement.
Kerala High Court held that vehicles are liable to be taxed at the rate prescribed for construction equipment as use of vehicle is only for the construction purpose. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that the assessee company being a debt free company the question of receiving any interest on receivables did not arise. Accordingly, the adjustment made by AO on account of interest on outstanding receivables. Writ dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
NCLT Delhi held that it may order winding up of a Company, the name of which has been struck off, but no power can be exercised for Insolvency Resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, unless the name of the Company is restored
CESTAT Delhi held that the most appropriate classification of canned pineapple slices will be CTH 0804. However, duty demand of extended period set aside as there was confusion in department regarding classification of canned sliced pineapples.
ITAT Mumbai held that delay of 33 months in filing appeal before Commissioner condoned on account of reasonable cause and outbreak of Covid-19. However, an amount of Rs. 51,000 directed to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF).
Kerala High Court directed to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority against the recovery notices issued by the revenue to petitioner who is claiming to have retired from the firm.
Kerala High Court held that petitioner was duly put to notice and thereafter the assessment proceedings had been completed. As assessment order was within jurisdiction and not in violation of principles of natural justice, petitioner directed to file an appeal before appellate authority u/s. 246A of the Act.
