Comfort Polymers Pvt. Ltd. wins the case against CCE- Jammu at CESTAT Chandigarh. CENVAT credit on destroyed goods is allowed as per Rule 3(5B) and 3(5C) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The Bombay High Court upheld the income tax deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) for an Industrial Park project. The court considered the approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and rejected the AO’s disallowance based on an erroneous report.
JNCH announces a new procedure to prevent pilferage from suspicious containers. Starting 01.08.2023, CSD officers will seal containers with customs seals after scanning
CESTAT Chandigarh sets aside penalty and interest imposed on Punj Brothers Limited for non-payment of customs duty on clearance of goods, citing limitation and lack of mutuality of interest between the parties. The case involved related party transactions and application of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
CESTAT Delhi upholds penalty imposed under section 114AA of the Customs Act on M/s Surendra Electricals for mis-declaration of the quantity of LED lights in the bill of entry.
ITAT Raipur quashes CIT(E)’s rejection of registration u/s 12AA for Agrasen Jan Kalyan Trust. The appeal highlights that activities should not decide registration, but rather the charitable objects.
NFRA has issued Order imposing penalties and sanctions on M/s ASRMP & Co. and auditors CA A. S. Sundaresha and CA Madhusudan U A for professional misconduct in audit of Coffee Day Global Limited for FY 2019-20.
In the case of Rajasthan Syntex Limited vs. Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi), the issue revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to interest for the intervening period when the rebate claim, which was retained by the Adjudicating Authority illegally, was ultimately sanctioned.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Commissioners of Income Tax (Appeals) stating that the Act of 1961 vests jurisdiction with the Central Government for such appointments.
ITAT held that approach adopted by NFAC merely because he granted relief in respect of one item of additions, does not mean that he can deny justice in respect of balance additions/grounds of appeal raised before him.
