Bombay High Court held that SVLDR Scheme covers not only tax but also interest, penalty. Hence, declaration under SVLDR in respect of notice issued for interest duly allowable.
Supreme Court held that separate notice u/s. 11A of the Central Excise Act not required when the order-in-original sanctioning the refund came set aside in a proceedings u/s 35E of the Central Excise Act.
Kerala High Court sets asides the ex-parte impugned assessment order and directs the assessing authority to pass fresh orders as the reasons for non-appearance before AO in response to the notice for hearing are found to be genuine.
ITAT Amritsar held that failure in furnishing of Form No. 10B is a procedural defect. Accordingly, denial of deduction u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act for such a defect is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Amritsar held that addition merely on the basis of statement taken at the time of locker operation without confronting the incriminating material or any other corroborative evidence has no evidentiary value u/s 292C.
ITAT Rajkot held that Partner’s/Director’s nationality will not suffice the company’s residency as the company is incorporated in UAE and is managed and controlled only in UAE. Thus, it is a tax resident of UAE and, therefore, treaty between India and UAE (DTAA) is applicable
ITAT Rajkot held that apparent and obvious mistakes in the return can be rectified by filing an application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, rejection of such application is unjustified.
Supreme Court directed release of appellant on bail in the event of Court chooses to remand them to custody under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CIDCO were the best judge to consider compliance with technical and financial conditions. MSETCL was consulted by CIDCO, both on account of the fact that the project had been undertaken by CIDCO on behalf of MSETCL as well as the execution of the same under the supervision of MSETCL. Therefore, the order of CIDCO was upheld in holding BNC to be technically qualified.
CESTAT Chennai held that as department failed to provide any evidence to establish the date on which Order-in-Original was received by the reviewing cell. Hence delay in filing of appeal by department dismissed as time-barred.
