CESTAT Allows Classification of Imported Quicklime Under CTH 2522 10 00
CESTAT has classified imported quicklime under CTH 2522 10 00, enabling the set aside of duty demands and affirming exemption benefits.
Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
CESTAT has classified imported quicklime under CTH 2522 10 00, enabling the set aside of duty demands and affirming exemption benefits.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the confiscation of undeclared gold brought into the country, reaffirming the necessity for compliance with customs declaration requirements.
CESTAT Chandigarh ruled that a defective PSIC alone does not justify the confiscation of imported scrap materials, underscoring the need for substantial evidence of objectionable content.
CESTAT has set aside the confiscation of exotic birds and animals due to insufficient evidence of smuggling, ruling that the Revenue failed to meet the burden of proof required under the Customs Act.
The CESTAT Delhi has quashed a customs duty demand invalidated on the basis of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's rejection of origin certificates. This ruling emphasizes the necessity for proper verification before rejecting such documents.
In a recent ruling, CESTAT Delhi upheld the inclusion of the software licence value in the customs value of imported dongles. This decision clarifies the valuation criteria for hardware components linked with software.
The Gauhati High Court quashed a GST registration cancellation notice for lacking necessary details, emphasizing the need for clarity in notices issued by tax authorities.
The ITAT Kolkata has set aside an income tax addition for alleged bogus purchases, as sales were accepted and suppliers confirmed the transactions under Section 133(6). The ruling emphasizes the significance of corroborating evidence in tax assessments.
The ITAT Pune has ruled that ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2019 is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, recognizing it as retrenchment compensation.
The ITAT Chennai has deleted penalties under Sections 41 and 43 of the BMA, ruling that the non-disclosure of ESOP shares constituted an inadvertent, bona fide omission. This ruling highlights the importance of intent in penalty assessments.

The ITAT determined that the limitation period for invoking revisionary jurisdiction must be calculated from the original assessment order date, quashing the related revision order. This ruling underscores the importance of adherence to procedural timelines.

The ITAT has ruled that taxpayers retain the right to carry forward capital losses even if a revised ITR is filed after the deadline, provided the original ITR was submitted on time. This decision safeguards taxpayer rights within income tax regulations.