The dispute concerned late filing of an audit report triggering penalty under section 271B. The Tribunal accepted personal hardship and first-year audit obligation as reasonable cause under section 273B. The decision reinforces relief where delay is genuine and explained.
CESTAT Chennai held that Polyvinyl Chloride [PVC] Suspension Resin Grade are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 3904.21. Accordingly, the order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal emphasized that exempt income disclosed in the return cannot be taxed due to a technical reporting mistake. Substance of disclosure prevails over form where facts are undisputed.
Held that Chilly Seeds that are Seeds of the fruits of genus Capsicum are classified under CTH 1209 and are not covered under CTI 0904. Accordingly, order of Commissioner (A) set aside and appeal of assessee is allowed.
The case involved a cash seizure treated as unexplained solely because the tax officer assumed no response was filed. The Tribunal ruled that overlooking documentary replies violates natural justice and warrants remand.
Delhi High Court held that discrepancy in counting of notes and in some serial numbers cannot be reason for acquittal since prosecution has proved its case of recovery of counterfeit notes beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, offence u/s. 489(C) of IPC stands proved.
The Supreme Court examined whether fees paid to foreign speakers through booking agents attract service tax as event management service. It held that speaker booking does not amount to planning, organizing, or managing an event and is therefore not taxable under that category.
The Tribunal ruled that trusts engaged mainly in education, medical aid, and public welfare remain eligible for 80G. Minor worship-related elements do not alter charitable character.
The Tribunal examined cash deposits made during the demonetisation period and accepted explanations relating to past savings and business collections. Only the agricultural income claim was remanded for limited verification.
The Tribunal examined whether professional fees claimed were actually incurred and for business purposes. It held that absence of evidence like bank payment, TDS, and service details justified disallowance.
