Delhi High Court held that liquor being sold by different companies incorporated by appellant. Accordingly, manufacturer and seller of the liquor was one and entire attempt was to avoid payment of excise duty by hiding behind the cloak of different companies. Hence, demand of excise duty on leftover stock upheld.
ITAT Chandigarh held that initiation of reassessment proceeding merely on the fact that AO has not carried out independent enquiries of confirmations from the creditors, without pointing out any deficiency or inaccuracy, cannot be a base to hold that order was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, reassessment unsustainable.
Madras High Court held that section 245C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) is read down by removing the retrospective last date of 1st date of February, 2021 as 31st day of March, 2021. All applications even in respect of cases arising between 01.02.2021 to 31.03.2021 shall be deemed to be pending application for purpose of consideration by Interim Board for settlement.
CESTAT Chennai held that demand of duty alleging violation of provisions of EPCG licenses on ground of failure to fulfill export obligation unsustainable as EPCG Committee granted extension of export obligation period for two years.
ITAT Mumbai held that reference to TPO in respect of Specified Domestic Transaction (SDT) u/s. 92BA(i) has been omitted from the statue by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01/04/2017. Hence, entire reference and transfer pricing adjustment is invalid.
Delhi High Court held that the Trade Notice no. 08/2023 dated 20.06.2023 issued by DGFT setting out the conditions of eligibility and procedure for allocation of quota for export of broken rice set aside. Further, respondent are directed to re-evaluate the criteria for allocation of quota for export of broken rice.
Madras High Court held that refund cannot be denied as refund application under section 54(1) of CGST Act was made within a period of limitation, however, supportive documents were submitted at the time of personal hearing. Notably, the time limit fixed u/s. 54 (1) is directory in nature and it is not mandatory.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation paid to a real estate developer for closure of agreement is allowable as revenue expenditure when the payment of such compensation is closely related to the business of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that the unabsorbed depreciation which is carried forward from earlier years is permitted to be set off against the short term capital gains.
Delhi High Court held that applicant cannot be denied the benefit of time spent by it in pursuing the review application as it was a sufficient cause which sought to explain the delay. Accordingly, delay of 79 days in filing appeal condoned.
