AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
CESTAT ruled that mandarin juice concentrate is classified as 'juice of any other single citrus fruit,' upheld duty demand while quashing penalties.
The Bombay High Court held that tax deposits made during ongoing GST raids do not automatically qualify as voluntary. Authorities are afforded opportunities for remedial action if refunds are warranted.
The ITAT upheld the disallowance of loan processing fees for loans not securing property for generating rental income, reiterating limitations on Section 24(b) deductions. This ruling clarifies acceptable expenses under the section.
The CESTAT ruled to reduce the penalty for fraudulently obtaining EODC to fulfill export obligations, applying the principle of proportional liability.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that imposing a separate penalty on a partner after penalizing the partnership firm is not permissible in Customs law due to lack of specific statutory provision.
The CBIC has revised customs tariff values for gold, silver, and edible oils effective May 16, 2026. Importers need to adjust to these changes for proper compliance in customs valuation.
The CESTAT Mumbai ruled that mandarin juice concentrate is correctly classified under a different category than orange juice, substantiating duty demands while quashing penalties. This decision clarifies tariff classifications for citrus products.
The CESTAT Bangalore ruled that an automatic soap dispenser cannot be classified as a toiletry spray since it only dispenses foam. Instead, it falls under the category of dispersing appliances, specifically under CTI 8424 89 90.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a motor vehicle tax demand is invalid if the corresponding permit was not duly countersigned. This decision clarifies tax liabilities associated with inter-state permits.
The Gauhati High Court determined that the CBIC Chairman and Customs Commissioners are necessary parties in a writ petition. This ruling clarifies the procedural requirements for effective legal redress in customs-related cases.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that mere projections of future income cannot lead to tax additions without actual accrual or enforceable rights.
The Bombay High Court highlighted that the powers under Section 263 cannot be applied if the Assessing Officer has made inquiries and reached a plausible conclusion.
ITAT Delhi ruled that an explanation regarding cash found during a tax search cannot be dismissed as an 'afterthought' without evidential rebuttal.