Supreme Court held that illegal termination of employment constitutes a civil dispute rather than criminal intimidation. Accordingly, appeal allowed and chargesheet against the appellants are quashed.
Gujarat High Court held that rejection of rebate claim under rule 5 of the Export Rules for want of documents not justified since and department cannot deny rebate claim which was legally entitled to petitioner.
In case of shares issued under amalgamation, there are no two parties to a transfer of a property. There are tripartite arrangements between amalgamated company, amalgamating company and shareholder of the amalgamating company.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, being the custodian of imported goods, appellant was burdened with the responsibility of safe custody of the imported goods.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of audit objections raised by audit party justifiable since there was no verification done by AO during assessment proceedings.
ITAT Jaipur held that rejection of application in Form 10AB for registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act alleging violation of FCRA Act without specifying the relevant provision is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(E).
Delhi High Court held that gold bangles worn by foreigner coming to India being part of personal effects is not required to be declared. Accordingly, seizure of such gold bangles by customs department is unjustifiable in law.
Delhi High Court held that deeming income from house property @50% merely on the assumption that assessee was signatory to the instrument is untenable in law since assessee doesn’t own beneficial interest in the property.
ITAT Mumbai held that market development expenses towards sale of product is revenue in nature hence denial of same is unsustainable. Accordingly, market development expenses being revenue expenditure is allowed as deduction.
Karnataka High Court held that Assessment Order and other proceedings taken up against the deceased are all null & void. Also held that proceedings initiated against deceased person by issuing notice after demise cannot be continued against the legal representative.
