Allahabad High Court held that non-production of documents which were relied upon by the department amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, impugned order liable to be quashed.
Thus, the prayer of the Appellant to exclude the commercial space from the Resolution Plan, could not have been accepted, nor any direction could have been issued for registration of Sale Deed.
Kerala High Court held that a loss in the derivative business is a business loss for the purposes of Section 72, and thus a set off of such business loss would have to be permitted against profits and gains of business.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for lower deduction of TDS not justified since the lower deduction in earlier months were due to bonafide reasons and the same was adjusted in later months.
Allahabad High Court held that appeal u/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since there is no perversity in finding of the Tribunal and accordingly there exists no substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act impermissible unless it is satisfied that document / seized material belonged to the assessee. Thus, appeal dismissed.
Bombay High Court granted conditional bail to Customs House Agent involved in transportation of drugs since applicant is already in custody for last 3 years and conclusion of trial in near future is a remote possibility.
Thus, personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules.
Delhi High Court held that order issued u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act wrongly challenged on the assumption that it is draft assessment order u/s. 144C is untenable in law. Accordingly, cost of ₹1,00,000/- imposed on petitioner.
Thus all the provisions relied upon by the Ld. AO would apply only in a case where an “asset” is “transferred” in the course of “amalgamation” by “transferor company” to the “transferee company” and would not apply when a particular “asset” is a “result” of amalgamation.
