CESTAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act for attempting smuggling of Red Sander woods unwarranted due to lack of valid evidences. Accordingly, penalty is dropped and appeal allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the recovery proceedings initiated by the Customs authorities under section 28AAA of the Customs Act are not sustainable as DGFT authorities have not cancelled MEIS licenses in question.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the books of accounts stood rejected under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and profits estimated, there cannot be addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that in view of the retrospective amendment u/s. 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act the assessee is eligible to pay tax at lower rate @10% instead of 20% on sale of unlisted share even in absence of filing the claim by way of revised return.
ITAT Delhi held that doubting the whole transaction of sale of shares as sham transaction merely on the basis of discrepancy in the record maintained by ROC not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal allowed stating that suspicion howsoever strong cannot taken place of evidence.
Bombay High Court held that that the stage which has been contemplated under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA, 2002] will be after the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of the scheduled offences.
Gujarat High Court confirms GST ITC reversal for R V Enterprises due to non-genuine supplier and unpaid tax, quashing penalty over procedural lapse.
NCLAT Delhi held that limitation period u/s. 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code commences from date of order and not dependent on knowledge of order to ED. Further, once prescribed and condonable periods expires, NCLAT has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal.
ITAT Pune rules unregistered trusts are taxed only on net income, not gross, even with ITR filing errors, emphasizing substantive justice.
ITAT Mumbai held that no addition can be made on the ground that notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act were not replied. Accordingly, deletion of addition by CIT(A) is justified and appeal of department quashed to that extent.
