The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) determined the classification of imported bamboo paper products, using the critical 36 cm roll width rule to distinguish between stock (4803) and finished goods (4818).
CAAR in Mumbai has determined that Climatic Test Chambers are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 9027 89 90 as apparatus for physical analysis, a decision supported by a prior CESTAT ruling.
ITAT Jaipur quashed the reassessment order against Late Shri Jitendra Nagar, ruling the AO used the wrong authority (PCIT) for sanction under Section 151(ii), following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal precedent.
The Supreme Court ruled that bona fide purchasing dealers who paid tax to registered sellers cannot be denied Input Tax Credit under the DVAT Act, even if sellers defaulted on tax deposit.
ITAT Delhi rules Section 148 notice invalid as escaped income not represented in an ‘asset’; reassessment quashed for being time-barred.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act issued by ITO, who didn’t have jurisdiction over the assessee, instead of DCIT is unwarranted. Thus, assessment order based on invalid notice is not sustainable.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unsecured loan is liable to be sustained since the assessee has miserably failed to establish the essential three ingredients as prescribed in section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed.
NCLAT Delhi held that monetisation by sale of units is impermissible since building plan of the project has not been revalidated. Accordingly, permission for monetisation not granted due to absence of revalidation of the map.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that the power to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 is invalid when a valid return is on record and the Assessing Officer still has time to initiate regular scrutiny under Section 143(2).
Kerala High Court held that appeals on identical issue can be disposed by passing single order containing single DIN. Thus, passing of single order for multiple appeal is legally valid. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
