Kerala High Court held that printing photographs from digital media is covered under classification SAC 998396 and hence it is taxable under 18% GST. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against Sumarrow Impex LLP (Corporate Debtor) admitted as financial debt and default stands proved.
CAAR Mumbai has ruled in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, classifying the imported ‘Forklift Drive Train’ under CTI 8431 20 10. The authority held that the custom-designed assembly is an essential part of a forklift, suitable for sole and principal use with CTH 8427 machinery.
ITAT Jabalpur held that disallowance under section 43B of the Income Tax Act on account of non-payment of Rural Infrastructure tax and dead rent needs verification. Accordingly, matter restored to the file of AO.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act can duly be imposed for mis-declaration in imports. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 imposed u/s. 114AA is modest since the same doesn’t exceed five time the value of goods.
The ITAT instantly dismissed the Revenues appeal because it only challenged the merits of additions, not the CIT(A)s core finding that the reassessment notice was time-barred. When the foundation of the reassessment is quashed and that ruling isnt appealed, all subsequent additions automatically collapse.
ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act expiry of specified period of limitation is time barred and hence invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed and notice is quashed.
The Supreme Court restored just compensation for the family of a deceased engineer, ruling that for MACT claims, income must include all emoluments and allowances, not just basic pay and DA, correcting the High Courts exclusion. The ruling mandates calculating income tax based on actual statutory slabs, rejecting arbitrary flat deductions, and applying the mandatory 50% future prospects for permanent employees under 40.
The ITAT deleted a Rs.1.30 crore addition, ruling that the reassessment was invalid because the reason for reopening (payments made by the assessee) was entirely different from the reason for the final addition (loan received by the assessee). The Tribunal held that an addition made on a new, unrecorded reason renders the reassessment proceedings unsustainable in law.
ITAT Kolkata held that passing of reassessment order without issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and not jurisdictional. Accordingly, order quashed and addition is deleted.
