CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AB of the Customs Act couldn’t be imposed merely on the basis of statement made under section 108 since it cannot be considered as evidence u/s. 138B of the Customs Act. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when the financial capacity of the complainant is not established, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, order of Trial Court upheld and appeal of complainant dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that discrepancies based on which application for registration under section 12AB was rejected are curable in nature. Hence, matter restored back to file of CIT(E) for afresh adjudication.
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition on the basis of loose paper without any corroborative material is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, addition is directed to be deleted and appeal is allowed.
Meghalaya High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable due to availability of alternate efficacious remedy under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Also held that writ is not maintainable as there is no breach of principles of natural justice.
ITAT Pune held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(v) of the Income Tax Act for belated filing of Form No. 10BB not justified as audit report in Form No. 10BB was submitted before completion of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
The present appeals are filed by the Revenue and Assessee against different orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 04.08.2022 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19.
The appellant is engaged in providing construction of commercial or industrial building services. It claims to have discharged service tax on this service. It is also in receipt of legal and professional services, and works contract service which are chargeable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the Commissioner of Income Tax’s powers under Section 263, emphasizing the conditions for exercising revisional jurisdiction.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-determining the value under residual provisions of rule 9 of the Customs Valuation rules without rejecting the transaction value is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
