ITAT Chandigarh held that registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act granted as the primary objects of the assessee society are aimed at the advancement of the object of general public utility within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act
CESTAT Kolkata held that refund of tax paid under mistake is not barred by period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Refund granted to the appellant.
ITAT Mumbai held that apart from the purchase and sale deeds of conveyance and 7/12 extracts from land revenue records, no other evidence has been brought on record by the assessee of having cultivated the land or carrying any agricultural activity. Accordingly, the same is treated as ‘capital asset’.
Karnataka High Court held that once the dividend is paid by the company, SEBI has no power to initiate any action against the company or its directors who have defaulted in payment of dividend as specified under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956.
ITAT Jaipur held that equalization levy not applicable as role of the assessee is merely conduit between the entity carrying out the advertisement and Google. The ultimate benefit of such advertisement is not desired by the assessee.
NCLT Hyderabad held that dismissed the application of corporate debtors as provisions of rule 43 of the NCLT Rules empowers the Adjudicating Authority, and not to the corporate debtors, to seek production of documents.
CESTAT Mumbai held that clear intention of export under ‘advance authorization scheme’ is evident and hence mere title of the shipping bills is to be alter. Application for alteration of the same cannot be rejected.
ITAT Hyderabad held that Cenvat credit of inputs used in manufacture of goods exported under bond from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit is available as refund under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
ITAT Bangalore held that before setting aside the matter the PCIT must have some material which would enable to form prima facie opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Revision under section 263 of Income Tax Act not possible on guess work.
Madras High Court held that addition of gifts as undisclosed income sustainable as there was no acceptable explanation as to the nature of relationship the gift receiver had with the donor in the course of business transaction.
