Madras High Court held that the entertaining an application for cross-examination of the witnesses, without any reply on merits by a notice in a show cause proceeding, is to be eschewed and should not to be allowed.
There was no deliberate intention on the part of assessee not to disclose the correct information or to evade payment of duty and as such it was not open to the Central Excise Officer to proceed to recover duties in the manner indicated in proviso to section 11A.
Calcutta High Court quashes penalty orders under WBGST Act, 2017, over delay in filing appeal due to personal circumstances
Delhi High Court held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified in absence of any effective inquiry and total non-application of mind by AO. Accordingly, order passed by AO erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
Held that the TPO had provided no reasons whatsoever for rejecting the TNMM as the most appropriate method. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the TPO’s decision to reject TNMM as the most appropriate method was without reasons.
Patna High Court granted conditional bail to the accused involved in smuggling of foreign origin gold. Further, accused also directed to remain physically present in the given dates.
Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of Duplex Board. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking to recover a sum of Rs.3,66,649/- which was paid by the petitioner to the Department as interest in excess of actual interest liability.
Delhi High Court in The Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust India v. Www.Friendwithbooks.Co (CS(COMM) 88/2021 & I.A. 78/2023) marks a significant development in this area, addressing whether a sanyasi (renunciate) can hold copyright over literary works created by them.
Delhi High Court held that decisions causing hardship to an employee cannot be termed as an action which would amount to incitement/abetment in terms of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thus, summoning order set aside.
Delhi High Court held that passing of penalty order after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO is untenable. Thus, penalty order set aside as passed beyond time period framed u/s. 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
