ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption u/s. 54F and 54B of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied solely on the ground of non-adherence to strict time limits. Accordingly, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction in respect of investments made beyond the prescribed time period.
CESTAT Delhi held that recovery of ineligible Focus Market Scrips under section 28AAA of the Customs Act cannot be sustained without cancellation of the instrument by DGFT. Accordingly, order held as without jurisdiction.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition on account of LTCG in the hands of firm not justified as property is belonged to the partner in his individual capacity and didn’t belonged to the firm. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as assessee disclosed the source of credits. It is also held that assessee has also disclosed source of source and hence addition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
The Petitioner is an Indonesian Company, having its manufacturing plants in Indonesia. It manufactures Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) and had exported Viscose Staple Fibres (VSF) to its customers in India.
Calcutta High Court held that SEBI cannot be forced to hand over documents to the accused. Accordingly, allowing petition u/s. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as preferred by the accused is not sustainable.
CESTAT Delhi held that it is rightly concluded that the foreign origin cigarettes are smuggled since the assessee failed to produce any documents proving that the cigarettes seized were validly imported. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai held that interest on Extra Duty Deposit not payable by revenue since lapses were on the part of importer in not submitting complete document enabling revenue to finalize assessment. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
Delhi High Court held that custody under Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act [NDPS] without any authority and without producing him before the concerned Magistrate or Special Court within 24 hours is completely illegal. Accordingly, present bail application allowed.
Patna High Court held that passing of order by CIT(A) without following the directions given vide judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court amounts to gross negligence if not a case of dereliction in duty. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored back.
