Follow Us:

Judiciary

Photography flashlights which produces flash for short duration is classified under CTH 9006

October 13, 2025 429 Views 0 comment Print

CESTAT Delhi held that photography flashlights which produces a flash for a very short duration are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9006 99 00 and not under 9405 40 10. Accordingly, Principal Commissioner cannot discard order of Commissioner (A) and Joint Commissioner to reclassify the goods.

No recall to dismissal order as alleged bias by Technical Member not proven

October 13, 2025 372 Views 0 comment Print

Technical Member’s prior role as HUDCO nominee director did not establish real danger or reasonable apprehension of bias. Tribunal held that the recall application lacked merit and was a belated attempt to reopen a matter that had already attained finality.

Interconnect usage and roaming charges paid to FTO are not royalty hence not taxable in India

October 13, 2025 678 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai held that the interconnect usage charges and roaming charges paid to Foreign Telecom Operators [FTOs] are not in the nature of royalty and hence not taxable in India. Thus, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS not justified. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.

Section 68 Addition Not Justified for Loan Before Business Commencement: ITAT Jaipur

October 13, 2025 564 Views 0 comment Print

Tribunal held that unexplained credit u/s 68 cannot be added when assessee has not yet commenced business. Loans received via account payee cheques from relatives of partners were genuine, referencing Alankar Promoters LLP vs ITO (Delhi HC).

No advantage to RP on failure to claim CoC resolution with 66% voting on his replacement

October 13, 2025 534 Views 0 comment Print

Appellate Tribunal held that the NCLT’s order replacing the Resolution Professional suffered from procedural irregularity and violation of natural justice. Replacement under Section 27 of the I&B Code must be done only through a CoC resolution with 66% voting however, since the RP himself failed to place the agenda for replacement, he could not claim advantage of that lapse. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed, and the NCLT was directed to follow due procedure under Section 27, ensuring fair opportunity and compliance with law.

Revisional Powers U/S 56 KVAT Act Are Limited, Clarificatory Orders Have Only Prospective Effect: Kerala High Court

October 13, 2025 303 Views 0 comment Print

High Court upheld the validity of the suo motu power under Section 56 and the classification finding, but held that the clarificatory order holding that “thermic fluid heaters” were not specifically covered under Schedule III and were taxable at 12.5% as a residuary (RNR) item under SRO 82/2006 could operate only prospectively from 07.04.2016 onwards, and not for AY 2009–10.

Agricultural Income Accepted, Yet Taxed? ITAT Ranchi Deletes Addition After Village Certificate Confirms Farming Activities

October 13, 2025 381 Views 0 comment Print

Ranchi ITAT deleted tax additions, ruling that income from 6 acres of land was genuinely agricultural. The AO’s action was reversed as evidence from the Village Mukhia confirmed cultivation and land ownership.

AO Turns Interior Designer Without DVO – Tribunal Says Nice Try, But No

October 13, 2025 252 Views 0 comment Print

The Tribunal found the tax addition in the Dulu Mahato case unsustainable. The AO failed to refer the property renovation valuation to the DVO and ignored evidence of joint investment by all co-owners.

Time-Barred Penalty: ITAT Hyderabad Quashes 270A Order Passed Six Months Beyond Section 275(1)(c) Deadline

October 13, 2025 984 Views 0 comment Print

The ITAT Hyderabad quashed a penalty order imposed under Section 270A, ruling it was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) because the order was passed in December 2021, six months after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2021. The Tribunal held that since the penalty was initiated in December 2020, the outer limit for passing the order had clearly expired.

One More Chance-But Pay ₹10,000- ITAT Ranchi Restores Appeal with Cost for Non-Cooperation

October 13, 2025 168 Views 0 comment Print

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte dismissal, directing the AO to readjudicate the matter afresh. The assessee must fully cooperate and pay a cost for the earlier failure to produce documents.

Search Post by Date
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031