Bombay High court held In the case of CIT vs. Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. that following the judgment of (2003) 264 ITR (38) (Bom.) (CIT vs. Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.)
Bombay High court held In the case of The CIT vs. Nitish Rameshchandra Chordia & others. that amendments in the statute unless a different legislative intention is clearly expressed, shall operate prospectively.
ITAT Kolkata has held in the case ITO Vs. Piyush Jalan that where lending of money is substantial part of the business of the concerned company and any advance or loan is made by it to a shareholder in the ordinary course of its business
It has been held in case of Mukesh V. Prajapati Vs ITO (Ahmedabad ITAT), that the amount of cash credits shown as loan taken from various relatives , cannot be added as unexplained credit under sec 68 just on the presumption that the sources of the fund is not genuine
In the case of M/s. Jindal (India) Textiles Vs. ITO the Hon’ble ITAT held that once creditors’ identity, mode of payment and repayment, assessee’s books of accounts proved the impugned credit transactions
In the case of Suri Sons vs. ACIT – ITAT Amritsar has held that that once life insurance policy has been sold as a life insurance policy on the keyman to the business, as long as it is in the nature of life insurance policy
In the case of M/S. Jaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Customs , it was held by Supreme Court that anti-dumping duty could not be added for computing customs duty, Special Customs Duty and Special Additional Duty by referring to the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs
In the case of D.R. Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector Of Customs And Ors, it was held by Supreme Court that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing appropriate writs, are very wide.
In the case of CIT vs Kapil Nagpal, it was held by the Delhi High Court that purchase of an agricultural land used for agricultural purposes did not violate 54F conditions. Further the exclusive ownership of the residential house on the date of transfer is required to prove violation of Section 54F.
Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application, unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances and that by itself means that exemption could be drawn under particular circumstances
