ITAT Mumbai held that in case of transfer of undertaking deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act for remaining unexpired period duly admissible to transferee when transferor and transferee should jointly intimate to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.
CESTAT Delhi held that illegal actions of the importer firms subsequent to the clearance of the cargo from the Customs Station do not attract the violation on the part of the Customs Broker. Accordingly, order upholding revocation of customs broker license set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that AO is not justified in adding unsecured loan received u/s. 68 as AO has rejected the evidences furnished by the appellant without establishing falsity of the documents. Further, documents duly proved identities and source of investors.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of reassessment proceedings on account of change of opinion formed on re-appraisal of the facts already on record and examined during the regular assessment proceedings is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that non-response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act by some parties that does not prove that the entire transactions are bogus especially when all other documents to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the parties have been submitted
Supreme Court held that where duty drawback is not paid within a period of three months from the date of filing of claim, the claimant would be entitled to interest in addition to the amount of drawback.
Bombay High Court held that it is well settled that it is not appropriate for a Court to hold a mini-trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction
ITAT Mumbai held that consideration for sale distribution or exhibition of cinematographic films would not fall under the domain of “Royalty” and accordingly TDS not deductible on the same.
Delhi High Court held that investigation for a period beyond 365 days not resulting in any proceedings relating to any offence under the Act, in terms of Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act, is that such seizure lapses. Thus, property so seized directed to be released.
ITAT Mumbai held that as ownership of property lies with the developer on the day of ‘agreement of sale’, sale consideration is taxable under capital gains in the hand of developer and not in the hands of assessee.
