Judgements by Shivani

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in Universal Distributors v. C.C.E. & S.T., Vadodara-I, Final Order No. 10748/2026 dated 15 September 2026, set aside a service tax demand of ₹8,44,162 raised under the category of “Supply of Tangible Goods Service.”

The Supreme Court, in M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, examined the correct customs classification of imported Dryview 6850 Laser Imagers under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The key issue was whether the laser imager

On the observation of the detailed case we can find the following fact from the judgment..... i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made on account of provision gratuity u/s

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata has erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the addition of excess depreciation claimed of Rs.1,61,95,130/- by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of th

This is an appeal filed by the revenue. It is directed against the order passed by the CIT (A) dated 3rd February, 2011 for Assessment Year 2006-07. The grounds of appeal read as under:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A)

We have heard both sides. The CBDT, vide above instruction has clearly laid down that the revenue should not prefer appeals against assessees before ITAT if the tax effect involved in the appeal, excluding interest, is less than Rs. 3 lacs. The tax p

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT (A)”] erred in passing the order dated 22.03.2010 upholding the order of the Ld. AO without affording the Appellant proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order

The ld. Commissioner of Income — tax (Appeals), ! XXXIII, Mumbai [“ld. CIT (A)”], erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Appellant challenging the action of the Assessing Officer [“A.O.”] in reassessing the income of the Appellant by invo

When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing

Facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.64,41,673 on account of loss being exchange difference on refund of customer’s advance. It was also notic