Gujarat High Court held that detaining of bulk liquid cargo of Distillate Oil is liable to be quashed detaining since cloud point is not a significant parameter in as much as other significant parameters are satisfied.
CESTAT Chennai held that notifications and circulars issued under the Customs Act, 1962 cannot take away the benefit which is otherwise available under the Foreign Trade Policy [FTP] and Handbook of Procedure [HBP].
Delhi High Court held that application of income tax department for release of FDR towards tax liability not entertained until conclusion of trial under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] since PMLA has an overriding effect over the provisions of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune held that provision of interest on loan from state government is ascertained liability and hence couldn’t be disallowed under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that transfer of case from Chandigarh to Panaji under section 127 of the Income Tax Act to centralize the assessment of all connected or linked persons at one place is justifiable. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Gujarat High Court held that the duty free import of “Walnut Inshell” against the entry of “Dietary Fibres” in the DFIA license issued under SION Norms E-5 for export Biscuits is permissible. Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly.
The assessee demonstrated that the ₹1.03 crore cash deposit arose from opening cash balance and collections from sundry debtors. The Tribunal held that the onus stood discharged and deleted the entire addition.
ITAT held that CPC cannot increase dividend income based on Schedule BP entries, restricting taxable dividend to the amount correctly disclosed in the return and upholding section 115BBDA exemption.
The Assessing Officer proceeded with reassessment after three years based solely on PCIT approval. The Tribunal emphasized that compliance with Section 151 is mandatory, and failure renders the notice under Section 148 void.
Reassessment was quashed as the statutory process under the faceless regime was not followed end-to-end by the same authority. Such jurisdictional inconsistency vitiates the entire proceedings.
