Since the Form 10B was filed along with the return of income and within the due date of filing the return of income, the delay in filing the Form 10B could not be a ground for denial of the exemptions under Sections 11 and 12.
An Excel sheet recovered from the email account of assessee can be relied upon to determine the value of imported goods, even without a certificate under Section 138C as Section 138C applies only when the document was printed or produced from a computer other than that of the assessee.
Since common input services were used for both taxable output and trading, assessee was required to reverse proportionate credit attributable to trading along with interest. Penalty under Rule 15(3) to be confined to proportionate irregular credit finally determined.
Where the Commissioner of Customs issued a Public Notice directing Container Freight Stations (CFSs) not to collect GST on auction sales of uncleared cargo under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, such notice was without jurisdiction, as the levy of GST was governed by the CGST Act and not by the Customs authorities.
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) could not be denied merely because commercial invoices did not carry the endorsement required under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, when all other substantive requirements were satisfied.
Loss of ₹7.66 Crore was allowable as bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), recognising the loss as a genuine business loss arising from NSEL’s operational suspension.
Penalty of Rs. 25.53 Cr. on Hindustan Coca-Cola was quashed as assessee had not collected any amount by way of sales tax during the exemption period, and the Revenue’s assumption of implicit tax collection was unsustainable.
Addition to the differential margin between the Gross Profit (GP) declared by the assessee and the benchmark rate of 10% adopted as the industry average for rice trading was restricted affirming that a full disallowance of such purchases was not justified when the corresponding sales were accepted by the Revenue authorities.
Assessments framed under Section 153A based on mechanical approval under Section 153D were invalid in law as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) had accorded omnibus and perfunctory approval to multiple draft assessment orders without application of mind, thereby vitiating the assessments.
Since Netflix India functioned solely as a limited-risk distributor of access, not as a licensee of content or technology, therfore, TNMM benchmarking was accepted, and the royalty-based TP adjustment of ₹444.93 crores was unsustainable.
