In re Nikon India Pvt Ltd. (CAAR Delhi) CAAR held that Nikon Camera Model No. N2120 with standard accessories proposed to be imported by the applicant is correctly classifiable under Sub-heading 85258900 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Also, in terms of, “The Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963, the said camera along with […]
Muhammad Salmanul Faris k Vs Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise (Kerala High Court) The Kerala High Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of “Muhammad Salmanul Faris k Vs Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise.” The case revolved around the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax […]
CESTAT Mumbai held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture.
ITAT Amritsar held that excess stock found during the survey only be treated as income under the head business income and not as deemed income under section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Kolkata held that central excise duty exemption available under notification no. 108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 as amended vide Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008 is allowable to appellant as motor vehicle chassis are cleared to the projects funded by International Organization.
ITAT Chennai held that income from listed shares and securities which had been treated as stock in trade by assessee is taxable under the head income from business and profession and not under the head capital gain.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as assessee was not legally obliged to pay customs duty amount, additional claim towards payment of such customs duty cannot be allowed under provisions of section 43B(a) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee has not committed any violation of provision of Chapter XVII B of the Act by making payment towards External Development Charges (EDC) to Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana (Haryana Government) (DGTCP) through banking channel favoring Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
ITAT Delhi held that rejection of books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Income Tax Act justifiable as there was number of defects and discrepancies in the same.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the subsequent service of the order copy to the appellant is the date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellant.
