The revenue, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal is the appellant. They are aggrieved by the order passed in WPO 334 of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 filed by the first respondent herein.
ITAT Raipur held that CIT(A) deleted the addition towards unexplained cash under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without proper verification of the facts and evidences and thus the matter restored back to the file of AO for adequate verifications.
Held that the land in question was purchased as an agricultural land and at the time of survey, it was also not in dispute that the proceedings of Section 143 of UPZA and LR Act were not initiated and the land in question was not declared as an abadi land.
Rajasthan High Court held that the doctrine of proportionality cannot be invoked in cases where the root of the employment itself is based upon a forged document. Thus, quantum of punishment imposed by Disciplinary Authority not interfered.
ITAT Delhi held that not filing of Audit Report in Form 10B alongwith the return of income is a procedural omission only and cannot be impediment in law in claiming the exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Chennai held that the imported Clear Float Glass is more appropriately classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 7005 1090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and thus is eligible for exemption of the benefit of the Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011.
CESTAT Bangalore held that import of brushless DC/Axial fans meant for use in electronic industry should be valued at Transaction Value under Section 4 of Central Excise Act and accordingly, demand of Countervailing Duty on the same unsustainable.
Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the matter cancellation of GST registration on allegation of availment of Input Tax Credit without actual receipt of goods, has dismissed the present writ on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
NCLAT Delhi held that Successful Resolution Applicant is entitled to relief of extension of benefit of protection of Section 32-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to lift the attachment by Enforcement Directorate (ED) over the assets of the Corporate Debtor.
Bombay High Court held that if the party is able to show the proof of supply to SEZ Unit, then non-submission of “Bill of Export” cannot be treated as non-discharge of proof of Export Obligation.
