The goods imported by assessee, such as, Big Cola, Big Orange Cola, Big Lemon etc., which they described as ‘carbonated beverage with fruit juice’ were neither carbonated beverage alone nor fruit juice alone gave the essential character of the products in question; both contribute to its essential character. The issue could not be resolved as per Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of the Rules of Interpretation and therefore resort was to be made to Rule 3(c). Since Customs tariff heading (CTH) 22029920 came last in the order, it prevails and the goods were classifiable under this heading.
Shri Amman Dhall Mill Vs Commissioner of Customs (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Appellate Tribunal committed serious error in law by ordering release of Canadian Green Peas under Section 125 on payment of redemption fine as by holding that release of goods was the only option to Customs Commissioner in the case on hand the language […]
Where there was non-consideration of material evidence by a statutory authority, judicial review by the High Court in exercise of it’s power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is permissible, and existence of alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of such power.
Assesse was under a bonafide belief that cash medical benefit were only reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the employees, and as such they could not form part of their income, therefore, no tax could be recovered from the employer on account of short deduction of tax at source under section 192(1), if a bona fide estimate of salary taxable in the hands of the employee was made by the employer.
Assistant Commissioner-V, Sales Tax was acquitted for allegedly demanding Rs.4,000 as illegal gratification after 25 years as there was no recovery from the appellant, presumption U/s 20 regarding acceptance of bribe could not be raised against him and there was neither any demand nor acceptance or recovery from the appellant. Hence, all the ingredients of an offence U/s 7 and 13(1)(d) could not be satisfied. The conviction order was prima facie unlawful as Section 20 was not invoked.
Discount offered on some of the prepaid mobile services did not partake the character of commission under Section 194H and hence there was no obligation to withhold tax on such discounts on prepaid services.
If assessee calculated Light Dues in respect of the Vessel correctly and remitted the correct amount, then Section 19 of the Act, 1927 could not be resorted to withhold an erroneous double payment or dual payment made by a citizen due to a system error or failure. The State was not expected to get itself unduly enriched by erroneous or forced or inadvertent payments of money made by its citizens and was not expected to bring in defence of limitation in respect of such payments resulting in unjust enrichment.
AO was not justified in denying the claim of deduction under section 80IC as interest income earned was inextricably linked to the main business activity of assessee as it was earned from fixed deposits which was required to be maintained as per the statutory requirements.
Insider trading was only made an offence in India under the SEBI Act, 1992 and it essentially deals with the sale and purchase of securities in the field of stock market based on nonpublic material information. No provision akin to Section 12-A and 15-G of the SEBI Act was incorporated in IPC by the Parliament relating to private sale transactions of purchase or sale of land which was an immovable property by invoking the said concept/theory of insider trading.
Since complainant was neither Registrar of companies nor a shareholder of the company or a person authorized by the Central Government to file the complaint, therefore, the complaint was dismissed as no other person can initiate any criminal proceeding against a company for the offence committed under the Act of 2013 .
