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received Form 3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and accordingly dismissed the pending appeal as withdrawn.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.
Madras High Court held that time limit of six years is reasonable time for passing of order under section 201 of the Income Tax Act in respect of non-residents. Accordingly, order impugning assessment years beyond six years is set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held the disallowance on basis that the ESOP expenses is contingent in nature cannot be sustained. However, amount claimed as expenditure, the basis of allocation of ESOP cost by GSGI etc., needs to be factually examined. Hence, matter remanded.
ITAT Delhi rules wife not liable to prove husband and sons’ source of funds for property purchase. Addition of Rs.1.10 Cr u/s 69 quashed as family funds explained.
