The Delhi High Court denied bail to a Kenyan national intercepted with 789 grams of cocaine ingested in capsules. The ruling cited the mandatory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act against granting bail in commercial quantity cases.
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that once sales have been recorded and taxed, they cannot again be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, deleting addition made on alleged accommodation entries.
The Gauhati High Court dismissed a Customs Department appeal regarding gold confiscation despite a contrary ruling from the Meghalaya High Court. The court adhered to its own binding Division Bench precedent on the ₹1 crore appeal limit.
Tribunal restored issue of validity of reassessment under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, noting that assessee raised legal ground for first time before ITAT.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition by Midsea International, which challenged a customs summons and the detention of a perishable consignment. The Court ordered the authorities to consider the petitioner’s explanation to the show-cause notice and pass a final order within two weeks
The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of Sunita Salhotra, quashing the Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 as barred by the statutory limitation period that expired on March 31, 2022. The Tribunal relied on the Revenue’s concession in the Supreme Court’s Rajiv Bansal case regarding notices issued for this AY on or after April 1, 2021.
The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition for goods detention, stating the Customs Act provisions for transhipment were not applicable. The court advised the petitioner to pursue the matter under admiralty jurisdiction.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that a co-operative society can claim deduction under Section 57 for costs incurred in earning interest income from banks. Matter was sent back to AO for verification of claim.
HC granted regular bail to director accused of availing fake input tax credit of ₹23.06 crore, noting that assessment was pending and purpose of the Act is revenue recovery, not punitive detention.
Dismissing Revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee’s ₹1.9 crore FDR was a renewal of an earlier deposit used as bank guarantee security and not a new unexplained investment under Section 69.
