The Bangalore CESTAT held that a refund claim cannot reopen a finalized customs assessment where the importer failed to challenge the self-assessed Bill of Entry within the statutory appeal period.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods does not attract confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Since the goods were not liable for confiscation, penalty on the Customs House Agent under Section 112(a)(ii) was set aside.
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(d) and 148. The courts held that reassessment cannot be sustained on allegations that change after issuance of the original notice.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained on changing allegations introduced after issuance of notice under Section 148A(b). The Court ruled that reopening must rest only on the original reasons disclosed to the assessee.
Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confer jurisdiction to impose penalties in a pure transit State. The Court directed release of goods and vehicles.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limitation principle and therefore lacked legal validity.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) cannot impose independent or contingent conditions while granting registration under Section 12AB. The Tribunal ruled that tax benefits could not be kept subject to the outcome of a proposed Supreme Court appeal.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings initiated after scrutiny assessment were invalid because they relied on the same material already examined earlier. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment cannot be used to review a previously accepted claim.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repaid the unsecured loan along with interest after deducting TDS and the lender had offered interest income to tax. These facts supported the genuineness of the transaction and rendered the Section 68 addition unsustainable.
Mumbai ITAT held that no addition under Section 43CA could survive where difference between agreement value and DVO valuation remained within 10% tolerance band. Tribunal ruled that safe harbour benefit applies once DVO valuation substitutes stamp duty value.
