Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The CESTAT has dismissed a refund appeal on customs duty reassessment, stating that the importer’s claim was barred due to late filing under Section 27. Proper documentation is paramount in navigating customs regulations.
Concessional import duty on gold, silver, and platinum has been increased from 4.35% to 10% under recent customs notifications.
CESTAT Mumbai ruled that a customs demand lacks legal standing without a mandatory show cause notice as prescribed by the Customs Act.
The CESTAT Bangalore classified an automatic soap dispenser under CTI 8424 89 90, rejecting its categorization as a toiletry spray per HSN notes.
The Bombay High Court declared GST proceedings against a non-existent company due to amalgamation as null and void, quashing the demand order. This decision affirms the need for compliance with corporate law in tax matters.
The Bombay High Court ruled that rejecting a manual GST appeal due to an unavailability of DRC-07 on the portal is unsustainable. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration under Rule 108 of the CGST Rules.
The ITAT Raipur invalidated reassessment proceedings due to the non-disclosure of documents to the assessee. This ruling emphasizes the necessity of fair procedure in tax reassessment.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for short TDS deduction is invalid if the payees have already paid the requisite taxes. This decision clarifies the conditions under which TDS disallowance applies.
The ITAT Delhi has ruled that reassessment based solely on a Revenue Audit objection is invalid unless supported by fresh tangible evidence. The decision reiterates the need for substantial grounds beyond mere change of opinion for reassessment under the Income Tax Act.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled that a demand notice issued without a mandatory show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act is invalid. This reinforces the legal requirement for proper notice before recovery proceedings.
The ITAT has ruled that Joint Development Agreements and occupancy certificates disclosed before IT searches cannot be deemed incriminating material under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, impacting the scope of tax searches.
The ITAT Bangalore contended that Section 45(5A) of the Income Tax Act does not apply retrospectively, allowing tax practitioners to navigate JDAs executed before April 1, 2018 without retrospective capital gains tax implications.