Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) Vs R.P. Cargo Handling Services (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner is require to ‘issue’ (ant not ‘serve’) a notice, under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), within a period of ninety days of the receipt of the offence report. Facts- The […]
Delhi High Court held that Betal Nuts known as ‘Boiled Supari’ is classifiable under Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Act and not under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that provision for Solid Waste Disposal Expenses made by the assessee is not a contingent liability but is an accrued liability and therefore claim of assessee is allowable.
ITAT Chennai held that as per assigning reasons for delay in filing audit report under section 44AB is venial technical breach and accordingly penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claim was rejected on sole ground of non-production of original documents. However, as original documents are misplaced, as per provisions of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, attested copies of invoices should be considered as proof of production of document.
Orissa High Court held that Chokad sold to NALCO not being an industrial input. Accordingly, Entry 74 of Part-II of Schedule B of the OVAT Act attracting 4% VAT doesnot apply to the same.
ITAT held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on Bogus purchase addition cannot be levied where addition was made on estimated basis.
C.C. Kandla Vs Reliance Industries Limited (CESTAT Ahmedabad) We find that in the present case, the revenue has not challenged the merit of the case however their appeal is only on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Revenue contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) merely followed the order of Mundra Custom however he has not […]
Once there is no averment either in SCN or impugned orders regarding availment of benefits by suppression of fact or fraud, invoking extended period of limitation is not proper
Mohamed Mohideen Ayesha Nasreen Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT held that it could be seen that assessee is living with her husband and three children (Two daughters and one son) in USA. She has got married in the year 2003. In this letter, the assessee has submitted that approx. 1201 grams of jewellery belong to […]
