CESTAT Ahmedabad held that refund under rule 16 of Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 allowable on account of change in constitution of firm into a private limited company.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that gratuity premium paid to LIC was to be treated as business expenditure and the same is allowable under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that enhancing the price of imported goods by invoking rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules without any evidence is unjustified and bad-in-law.
CESTAT Delhi held that initiation of proceedings against Customs Broker alleging violation of regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2018 unjustified as he is not the party to alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation.
Jharkhand High Court held that TCS is not to be collected in the transaction of purchase of coal which is used in generation of power. Accordingly, illegal sum collected as TCS is ordered to be refunded back with interest.
Delhi High Court upheld the remand order passed by Sessions Court, in the money laundering case registered against Vivo, concluding that Section 19 of PMLA was duly complied with and thereafter the accused persons were remanded to the custody of Directorate of Enforcement.
Madras High Court held that initiation of proceedings for reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on material already on record and without new/ tangible information is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as voluntary deposit of tax was done before receiving notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Raipur held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act within the time period contemplated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) to Section 275, i.e six months from the end of the month in which appellate order was received is duly justified.
ITAT Delhi held that assessee has placed sufficient evidences to discharge initial onus to explain the nature and source of loans. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan unjustified.
