Delhi High Court held that in terms of section 28(9) of the Customs Act the show cause notice needs to be adjudicated within a period of six months or within one year. Adjudication of notice after expiry of the said period is time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act not available as the assessee is not carrying on any business activity.
CESTAT Ahmedabad it is settled legal position that cenvat credit on the sugar cess paid as part of CVD in respect of import of raw sugar is duly available.
CESTAT Chennai held that order of revocation of license as authorized courier unjustified as appellant didn’t played any role the impugned smuggling of gold and other commercial goods.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that since the issue involved is with regard to taxability of Ocean Freight and reimbursement of expense which is highly interpretational in nature. Further, in absence of suppression of facts or malafied intention, extended period of limitation is not invocable.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of staff welfare expenditure on the adhoc basis unsustainable as AO failed to establish as to who the expenses are not incurred for business purpose.
ITAT Delhi held addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustained as assessee duly satisfied the initial onus i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction established.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that it is settled legal position that sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax even though main contractor has paid service tax on total value. Accordingly, service tax demand sustained.
ITAT Chennai held that the incidence of tax for joint development agreement (JDA) is different and incidence of tax for subsequent sale of flats is different.
Gujarat High Court held that notice issued just two days before expiry of limitation and giving only one day time to provide the defence reply is unjustified as petitioner is not granted reasonable opportunity of being heard.
