Baggage Rules Apply Only To Luggage Of International Travellers, Not To 'Reasonable Amount' Of Jewellery Worn In-Person: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has made it clear that Baggage Rule, 2016 framed under the Customs Act, 1962 apply only to the baggage carried by an international traveller.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the Rules cannot be extended to articles like jewellery, “carried on the person” of a traveller.The bench observed, “The Customs Act, 1962, enables the Central Government to make Rules...

Notice Issued To Non-Existing Entity Post-Merger Is Substantive Illegality, Dept Cannot Cite Technical Glitch: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court stated that notice issued to a non-existing entity post-merger is a substantive illegality and not some procedural violation. “we cannot condone the fundamental error in issuing the impugned notices against a non-existing company despite full knowledge of the merger. The impugned notices, which are non-est cannot be treated as “good” as urged on behalf...

Adjustment Of Refund Against Confirmed Demand During Pendency Of Appeal Amounts To Coercive Recovery: CESTAT

The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that adjustment of refund against a confirmed demand during the pendency of an appeal amounts to coercive recovery. The amount adjusted from the total refund sanctioned to the assessee is refundable to the assessee at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the date of deposit till the date...

What Is The Time Period Surviving U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act For Issuing Reassessment Notices: Delhi High Court Explains

The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation,...

Dept Cannot Consider Refund Claim Unless It Specifies Which Notification And Provision It Has Been Sought Under: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the department cannot consider a refund claim unless it is specified under which notification and provision the same has been sought. The Bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial) has observed that, “The lapse of non-filing of refund under proper notification separately for June 2013 cannot...

Adobe India Is Not Dependent Agent PE Of Adobe Ireland: Delhi High Court Negates Attribution Of Further Profits

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd is not a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed that no further attribution of profit can be made as Adobe India was...

Suo Moto Disallowance Made By Assessee Under Bonafide Belief Of Tax Liability Can Be Rectified U/S 264 Of Income Tax Act Without Amending ITR: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the...

Date Of Assessment Order Recommending Penalty For Accepting Cash Above ₹2 Lakh Not Relevant For Determining Limitation U/S 275 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).Section 275(1)(c) prescribes the period of limitation within...

Communication Modules Are Imported Independently, Not As Part Of Communication Hubs Or Smart Meters: CESTAT Quashes Customs Duty

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that imported communication modules function independently as parts of communication hubs, classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) have observed that “since the communication modules were imported, they should...

Ensure Counsel Appearing On Advance Service Are Instructed Properly: Delhi HC Asks Customs, GST Department, DRI And DGGI To Frame SOP

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the Commissioner of Customs to prepare an SOP as to the manner...

Fees Paid By Law Firm Remfry & Sagar To Use Name & Goodwill Of Founder Is Business Expense, Deductible U/S 37 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure...

'Activity Did Not Involve Any Manufacturing, Central Excise Duty Was Collected Illegally': CESTAT Orders Refund

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has granted a refund along with interest, despite the absence of a statutory provision for interest under central excise laws at the relevant time. The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the amount collected by way of Central excise duty...