Tribunal confirmed CIT(A)’s estimation of 12.5% disallowance on ₹2.19 crore alleged bogus purchases, dismissing both assessee’s plea for reduction and Revenue’s demand for higher addition.
The court found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the declared profit rates were comparable to previous years, distinguishing the case from bogus purchases precedents.
The Calcutta High Court, in Abdul Mannan Vs ITO, set aside a ₹50,000 cost imposed by the ITAT for the restoration of a tax appeal, citing the assessee’s small-trader status and dependency on a negligent consultant.
CESTAT Hyderabad held that benefit of concessional rate vide notification no. 62/2004-Cus dated 12.05.2004 is denied on import of rectangular shape gold bars as manufacturers or refiners serial numbers not found engraved on the gold bars.
CAAR Mumbai held that ultrasonic parking sensors are not semiconductor devices but parts of rear parking assist systems, classifiable under CTH 8512. Sub-components were classified individually.
Karnataka High Court held that date of surrender of bank guarantee to be considered as relevant date for the purpose of claiming refund under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that post approval of resolution plan, there could be no occasion whatsoever for department to issue notices. Accordingly, GST notices issued alleging wrong claim of ITC quashed and set aside.
NCLAT Delhi held that termination of concession agreement has no relation with default in repayment of dues of the Financial creditor. Accordingly, application u/s. 7 of IBC rightly admitted against Supreme Manor Wada Bhiwandi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] as debt and default established.
Tribunal noted that the assessee received Form 3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and accordingly dismissed the pending appeal as withdrawn.
Madras High Court held that inquiry report under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2018 [CBLR] submitted beyond the period of 90 days is against mandate provided under sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 17 hence inquiry report is illegal, arbitrary and barred by limitation.
