Delhi High Court sets aside reassessment for AY 2006-07, ruling JCIT lacked power to sanction Section 148 notice after 4 years; CCIT/CIT approval required.
Delhi High Court granted bail granted to Chartered Accountant [CA] of entity found involved in money-laundering. Notably, bail is granted since trial in the present complaint case is yet to commence and would take some time to conclude.
Patna High Court held that section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates granting at least three opportunities of personal hearing at sufficient interval. Order passed without complying the same is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that incentives in the form of excise duty refund, sales tax remission, sales/ VAT input tax refund received under the Incentive Scheme are capital receipts and hence not chargeable to income tax. Accordingly, ground of the assessee allowed.
Bombay High Court held that exporters are entitled to both input side and output side rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and not just one kind of rebate. Thus, present writ petition allowed.
Bombay High Court permitted audio-video appearance before investigating officer for recording of statement in view of Economic Offences Wing’s (EOW) directions to withhold the renewal of the petitioner’s passport. Accordingly, petition stands allowed.
Delhi High Court didn’t entertained the appeal filed by the Customs Department since the quantum of alleged wrongly availed drawback and penalty there on was too negligible. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Mumbai Customs Authority for Advance Rulings classifies CM3K65HP1, a zinc oxide mixture for sun protection, under CTH 3304 as a skin preparation.
Delhi High Court held that petitioner was not aware about the GST SCN uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’, accordingly, order passed in absence of the reply is liable to be quashed. Notably, 30 days time given to petitioner to furnish reply.
Delhi High Court held that bail granted in fraudulent ITC generated and passed by the respondent is upheld since there was no pending investigation. Re-arrest of respondent is unwarranted since he has fully cooperated in investigation.
