ITAT Delhi quashed a ₹65 lakh penalty under Section 271D after finding that no assessment was made for the relevant year and no satisfaction was recorded for initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained in such circumstances.
CESTAT examined whether Bluetooth headsets should be treated as communication devices or ordinary headphones. It held that devices capable of transmitting and receiving voice and data in wireless networks fall under CTI 85176290.
The Orissa High Court considered a request for amendment of GST registration where business was conducted from a different location. The petitioner undertook to deposit arrear taxes, interest, late fees, and penalty before seeking amendment.
The Calcutta High Court examined whether its earlier ruling on diesel escalation reimbursement contained an apparent error. It held that no such error existed and dismissed the review petitions.
The Tribunal examined a service tax demand raised on the basis of DGARM data and financial statements. It held that reliance solely on such material could not sustain the extended limitation period, resulting in the demand and penalties being set aside.
The Tribunal examined whether reassessment proceedings could be initiated after the NCLT declared a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It held that fresh assessment proceedings during the moratorium period were invalid and quashed the assessment order.
The Tribunal examined whether unsecured loans could be accepted solely on the basis of loan confirmations. It held that confirmations alone do not establish creditworthiness or genuineness and directed further verification by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal examined whether donations made as part of CSR obligations could qualify for deduction under Section 80G. It held that deduction cannot be denied merely because the payment was made towards CSR, subject to fulfillment of Section 80G conditions.
The Delhi High Court held that acceptance of payment under an approved insolvency resolution plan amounted to settlement of the dispute. As the plaintiff accepted the CIRP amount as full and final settlement, withdrawal of the suit and refund of the entire court fee were permitted.
CESTAT Delhi held that food testing kits were wrongly described as being for “diagnostic use only” to claim a customs exemption. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, extended limitation period, and penalties.
