ITAT Pune held that time limit of six months for filing an application u/s. 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act applies only to trusts which have not started charitable activities and not to trust which has already started charitable activities before obtaining Provisional registration. Accordingly, application held to be valid and maintainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement of witness recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s. 112(a) is set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant as the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. Thus, penalty imposed under section 112(a)(i) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Mumbai held that the cost of acquisition in present case would be the FMV of the flats which the assessee has acquired in exchange of surrender of tenancy right to the developer. Accordingly, AO is directed to re-compute cost of acquisition.
ITAT Panaji held that disallowance of audit fees is not justifiable since commencement of business operation is recognised under the Companies Act and expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as provisions of section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act. Matter must specifically fall within Block Assessment Scheme for abatement. However, writ dismissed as power under Article 226 not invoked.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure contemplated u/s. 138B of the Customs Act not followed. Accordingly, penalties-imposed u/s. 112(a)(i) and 112(a)(ii) cannot be sustained.
ITAT Bangalore held that revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable since AO took plausible view of treating the interest chargeable u/s 28 of the Act being attributable to the business & allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
Supreme Court held that no Court inferior to Court of Sessions shall try an offence punishable under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Accordingly, High Court rightly dismissed petition filed u/s. 482 for quashing of complaint. Thus, present appeal stands dismissed.
Supreme Court held that possession without an Occupancy Certificate cannot be forced upon the homebuyers. Accordingly, orders of NCDRC are affirmed and held that appellant shall continue to pay compensation as determined by the NCDRC without any default.
