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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
