ITAT Mumbai held that holding period of the capital goods includes the date on which asset is acquired and also date of sale/ transfer of the same. Accordingly, shares held for exactly 12 months treated as long term.
Calcutta High Court held that application for setting aside of an award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be made after three months from the date of arbitral award. Thus, application made after the time period is barred by limitation.
CESTAT Delhi held that the amount of redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner in the impugned order is equal to the value of the goods itself, the same is harsh, accordingly, concluded that the amount of redemption fine must be reduced.
Delhi High Court held that as directed by Tribunal AO was required to verify and attend grievance of short credit of TDS. Thus, restricting TDS claim of petitioner to disclosures made in return unjustified.
CESTAT Bangalore held that rejecting request for amendment of declared value in bill of entry (BOE) without awaiting outcome of DRI investigation not justified. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back to adjudication authority.
Supreme Court held that non-execution of sale deed is a civil wrong and a civil wrong cannot be given a criminal colour merely to coerce the appellants into registering the sale. Thus, criminal proceeding not allowed to be continued.
ITAT Raipur held that law will help only those who are vigilant and will not assist the one who are careless. Accordingly, request of assessee to restore matter back not granted as assessee has chosen not to represent its matter for more than 08 years.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that non application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the A.O. will make the order erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, as order passed without adequate inquiry, revision u/s. 263 justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order has been framed in the name of a non-existing assessee.
Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL filed by a self-styled criminology firm observing that no mandamus can be issued merely for enforcing a particular thought of an individual or an organization, if it is not supported by any legal premise.
