The Gauhati High Court held that a taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns could seek restoration by complying with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. It directed the authority to consider the application in accordance with law after compliance.
CESTAT held that the exporter established complete correlation between the exported, re-imported and re-exported frozen buffalo meat through documentary evidence and departmental supervision. It set aside the customs duty demand, redemption fine and penalties after finding compliance with Notification No. 158/95-Cus.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of a VCES declaration was unsustainable because the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed 30-day period. The Tribunal set aside the rejection and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
CESTAT Chennai held that an importer was entitled to concessional CVD under Notification No. 12/2012-CE because imported goods must be treated as if manufactured in India under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in SRF Ltd. and dismissed the Department’s appeal.
ITAT Visakhapatnam remanded the assessment after holding that documentary evidence relating to cash deposits, members’ records and audit reports required proper verification. The Tribunal directed a fresh assessment without expressing any opinion on the merits.
ITAT Hyderabad held that an addition under Section 69 cannot be sustained solely on the basis of an uncorroborated loose sheet. The Tribunal ruled that independent evidence is necessary to establish alleged on-money payments.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 does not justify denial of Foreign Tax Credit where taxes have been paid in the foreign jurisdiction. It ruled that the procedural delay cannot override the substantive benefit available under the DTAA.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that filing a return of income before completion of assessment is mandatory for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal upheld denial of the deduction where the return was filed only after the assessment.
The ITAT held that proceeds from the sale of ancestral immovable property are taxable under the head Capital Gains” and not Income from Other Sources. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation after considering the assessee’s documents.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer must comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50C(2) before adopting the stamp duty value. The matter was remanded for obtaining the DVO’s valuation report and fresh adjudication.
