The Tribunal held that the incorrect carry-forward loss claim arose from an inadvertent mistake and was not deliberate. The penalty was deleted after noting absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
CESTAT Delhi held that import of parts of e-rikshaw cannot be presumed to be import of an e-rikshaw in complete knocked-down/semi knocked-down [CKD/SKD] condition as three essential components were not imported. Accordingly, demand set aside.
The Tribunal held that reopening was invalid as the sanctioning authority recorded only a one-word approval. Key takeaway: Mechanical approval without reasoning vitiates jurisdiction under Section 147.
The Chennai Tribunal upheld penalties against custodians, steamer agents, and employees for removing seized goods without permission, confirming accountability under the Customs Act.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the petitioner’s repatriation under DOPT OM 17-06-2010. The CAT’s findings on unsuitability and compliance with notice requirements were upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that an addition of Rs. 25 lakh was unjustified as the genuineness of a cash deposit from agricultural land sale was established, despite minor errors in affidavit.
Reopening notice under Section 148 was held invalid as the AO ignored co-purchasers’ contributions and granted mechanical approval under Section 151 without application of mind. The Tribunal ruled the reassessment and associated additions null and void.
CESTAT Delhi upheld a ₹10 lakh penalty on a customs broker for filing benami Shipping Bills without exporter authorization, confirming liability for mis-declared goods.
NCLAT ruled that GST dues of a corporate debtor, once admitted in CIRP, transform into operational debt, allowing assignment to a private creditor. The appeal challenging the debt transfer was dismissed.
The DRAT set aside the DRT order directing the bank to update credit information, ruling that former directors and guarantors cannot reopen withdrawn loan proceedings to alter CIBIL records.
