ITAT Chandigarh quashed a Rs.16.24 lakh penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the fresh assessment accepted the returned income, confirming penalties require concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Delhi High Court held that CBIC should conduct inter-ministerial consultation in re respect of the uniform policy permitting or prohibiting import of products declared as ‘body massagers’ or sex toys.
ITAT Agra held that entire TDS deducted on maturity of bond is allowable since assessee has already offered interest income on accrual basis. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed and TDS credit granted.
CESTAT Delhi held that ‘Twaron Para Aramid Pulp’ is classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 5601 30 00 and not under Customs Tariff Item 5601 22 00. Accordingly, differential duty along with interest confirmed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that cancellation of registration granted to appellant-society u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act not justifiable since conditions precedent for cancellation of registration u/s. 12AB(4)(ii) of the Income Tax Act not satisfied.
Madras High Court held that development charges paid to SIPCOT not being capital asset doesn’t qualify for the claim of depreciation. However, the same qualifies as revenue expense and assessee entitled to claim deduction @5% as SIPCOT would deduct 5% every year.
Delhi High Court held that writ seeking direction to Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI]; Enforcement Directorate [ED] and Serious Fraud Investigation Office [SFIO] to investigate in gigantic Westland Trade Pvt. Ltd. franchisee scam is dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai held that imported LED Monitors Tiles are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 84285200 and hence eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 01/03/2005. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Gujarat High Court ruled that reassessment beyond four years is invalid when no new material or failure of disclosure exists, terming it a mere change of opinion.
The Tribunal set aside a service tax demand against a mandap keeper, ruling that a photocopied invoice and presumptions cannot justify tax liability.
