The Bombay High Court upheld the CESTAT’s finding that there was no evidence the Customs Broker advised the importer to violate customs laws or evade examination. It dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that no substantial question of law arose.
The ITAT Pune held that Section 80-IAC does not require startups to complete three years before claiming the deduction. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction from the first eligible assessment year.
The Karnataka High Court held that filing a revision petition under Section 264 established the assessee’s knowledge of the tax demand. It upheld the refusal to condone the delay of about eight years in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Bombay High Court held that Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act does not authorize the Charity Commissioner to direct enrollment of new members or fresh elections. Orders issued beyond statutory powers were declared without jurisdiction.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer must implement the terms of the later APA covering royalty payments to the AE. The ruling required fresh effect to be given based on the modified return.
The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments must be based on international transactions and not entity-level figures. It remanded the matter after finding errors in the computation of the arm’s length price.
The Supreme Court held that once an earlier SLP has been dismissed and a subsequent review petition also fails, a fresh SLP is not maintainable without specific liberty from the Court. The ruling reinforces the principle of finality in litigation.
The Supreme Court held that the Service Code permitted representation only through a union or association of the Bank of Cochin’s employees or, with permission, by a lawyer. Denial of representation by an office-bearer of another bank’s union did not invalidate the disciplinary proceedings.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of educational institutions up to 30 June 2012 was not taxable as the Department failed to prove the buildings were primarily for commerce or industry. The demand for that period was accordingly set aside.
The Tribunal held that a reassessment order making no new additions does not merge with the original assessment so as to permit challenge to issues accepted earlier. The original disallowance remained unaffected.
