The Madras High Court ruled that medical reimbursements up to ₹15,000 per employee cannot be subjected to Fringe Benefit Tax in the absence of a clear statutory charging provision. The judgment reiterates that tax cannot be imposed by implication or through administrative circulars.
The Bombay High Court upheld the CESTAT order after finding that denial of cross-examination violated Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR, rendering the proceedings against the Customs Broker invalid. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals after holding that the additions qualified for deduction under Section 80IB, making the entire exercise revenue neutral despite disagreeing with the Tribunal’s approach.
The Bombay High Court directed revival of the assessee’s appeal after the Supreme Court remanded Section 151A reassessment matters for fresh consideration. The Court allowed the assessee to raise all legal and factual grounds, including limitation, before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s finding that the respondents satisfied the definition of person resident in India under Section 2(v) of FEMA. It consequently affirmed the setting aside of penalties and confiscation imposed by the Enforcement Directorate.
The High Court observed that investigation had concluded, charge sheets had been filed, and proceedings were stalled due to stays against other accused. In these circumstances, it granted regular bail with specified conditions.
The Calcutta High Court held that although the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, prolonged custody without trial justified grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions.
The Gujarat High Court held that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 could not be sustained where allowing higher depreciation would not result in any escapement of income chargeable to tax. It ruled that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion and quashed the proceedings.
The Gujarat High Court held that DGCEI falls within the scope of law enforcement agencies under Clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular, making the exception to departmental appeal monetary limits applicable. The Tribunal’s contrary interpretation was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
The Bombay High Court held that royalty refunded by a foreign company to its Indian subsidiary under an Advance Pricing Agreement could not be taxed as its income. The Court also ruled that the APA governed the determination of the arm’s length price for the covered assessment years.
