CESTAT Hyderabad held that imported Chinese Coke Breeze used for metallurgical purpose only and not for any other purpose like non-metal extraction, etc. would be entitled to benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dt.17.03.2012. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
ITAT Pune held that late filing of audit report cannot disentitle trust from availing benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) allowing claim of exemption u/s. 11 upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition towards unaccounted commission based on seized digital sheet without corroborative evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, addition is deleted and said ground raised by assessee is allowed.
Delhi High Court held that security deposit which is nothing more than sale consideration hence the same used as a devise to postpone tax liability towards an uncertain date. Accordingly, the said question is answered in favour of revenue.
Gujarat High Court held that denial to condoned delay in filing cross-objections without adequate reasoning is not justifiable. Accordingly, order is quashed and delay in filing cross-objection condoned.
Delhi High Court held that CBIC should conduct inter-ministerial consultation in re respect of the uniform policy permitting or prohibiting import of products declared as ‘body massagers’ or sex toys.
ITAT Agra held that entire TDS deducted on maturity of bond is allowable since assessee has already offered interest income on accrual basis. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed and TDS credit granted.
CESTAT Delhi held that ‘Twaron Para Aramid Pulp’ is classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 5601 30 00 and not under Customs Tariff Item 5601 22 00. Accordingly, differential duty along with interest confirmed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that cancellation of registration granted to appellant-society u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act not justifiable since conditions precedent for cancellation of registration u/s. 12AB(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Act not satisfied.
Madras High Court held that development charges paid to SIPCOT not being capital asset doesn’t qualify for the claim of depreciation. However, the same qualifies as revenue expense and assessee entitled to claim deduction @5% as SIPCOT would deduct 5% every year.
