Excise duty demand of approximately 24 crores against Volkswagen India was quashed on the amount recovered as liquidated damages on the ground of non-violation of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 and in the event of rejection of the invoice value as transaction value, it was not open to the adjudicating authority to re-determine value without recourse to Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules.
Department did not have a case that assessee had not discharged Service Tax on the agency commission received as a Steamer Agent or CHA.
Deduction claimed by assessee in return of income which was directly relatable to the insurance activities, as it did not fall under section 80P(2) i.e., Insurance activities.
In a recent Delhi High Court judgment, it was ruled that GST proceedings initiated by different authorities can be consolidated. Learn more about case and its implications.
Granting a short period of time to file a reply violates the legal right of an assessee. Learn about judgment of Madras High Court in case of M/s Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai
Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit.
Delhi High Court held that a mistake has been made in triggering reassessment proceedings against the petitioner as no impugned transactions have been carried out by the assessee and accordingly, re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is set aside.
Delhi High Court granted bail as prolonged incarceration of a person overrides the statutory restriction contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Telangana High Court held that the Registration of a document does not create any title. The action of non-registration of a document under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 does not prevent a person of the right to enjoy his property.
CESTAT Allahabad held that legal ownership and acquisition of gold proved via documentary evidence on the other hand, the Department has not been able to provide any iota of evidence to show that the seized gold bar was smuggled. Thus confiscation under Section 121 Customs Act is unsustainable
