CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act can duly be imposed for mis-declaration in imports. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 imposed u/s. 114AA is modest since the same doesn’t exceed five time the value of goods.
ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act expiry of specified period of limitation is time barred and hence invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed and notice is quashed.
ITAT Kolkata held that passing of reassessment order without issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and not jurisdictional. Accordingly, order quashed and addition is deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act issued without specifying the specific charge or limb i.e. without striking off the irrelevant limb is erroneous. Accordingly, penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
CESTAT Delhi held that since amendment u/s. 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has not come into force, the present anti-dumping appeal would be maintainable before the Tribunal u/s. 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that surrendered income during survey cannot be treated as unexplained income or money u/s. 69 & 69A of the Income Tax Act and tax in accordance with provisions of section 115BBE. The same has to be assessed to tax under ‘business income’.
ITAT Delhi held that assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act based on common approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is non-est in the eye of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that seized amounts prima facie being proceeds of crime cannot be termed as income of accused as trial in PMLA case is yet to be conclude. Accordingly, it is erroneous to treat such amount as taxable income recoverable by Income Tax Department.
ITAT Delhi held that mere presence of blank cheque without there being any other evidence, proving earning of any income or making of any capital transaction, the same cannot be treated as income. Accordingly, ground raised by revenue dismissed.
Supreme Court held that since all three conditions required to sustain levy of tax u/s. 3F(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 are fulfilled, tax is leviable on ink and processing material used in printing lottery tickets.
