Fiberhome India Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) CESTAT Delhi held that Populated/Loaded/Printed Circuit Boards [PCB] cards are used as parts of OTN equipment and hence are classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90 and not under CTI 8517 62 90. Facts- The appellant manufactures ‘Optical Transport Network’ equipment for supply to the […]
ITAT Hyderabad held that once it is proved that amount is invested towards purchase of new residential property then deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because property got registered beyond stipulated period.
ITAT Nagpur held that addition under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act unwarranted since difference between actual sale price and valuation as per DVO is within tolerance band of 10%. Accordingly, entire addition is directed to be deleted.
The Supreme Court ruled that a cheque dishonour complaint is maintainable against a Trustee who signed the cheque, even if the Trust is not arrayed as an accused, as a Trust is not a juristic person under the NI Act.
Tribunal granted substantial relief to Wadhwagroup Holdings by deleting tax disallowances aggregating ₹2,13,03,85,960. Tribunal dealt with issues relating to subleasing expenses, reversal of flat sales, project construction costs, interest expenditure, classification of common area maintenance (CAM) charges, and deemed rental income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and ruled largely in favour of the assessee.
Since voluntarily filed returns could not be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963) and additional evidence was inadmissible and that the seized cash was rightly treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, taxable under Section 115BBE.
ITAT Jaipur held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained money found during the course of search is liable to be deleted since assessee has discharged his onus to prove that the cash found is completely verifiable from the audited books of accounts.
Kerala High Court held that order passed without granting reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, whose statements were relied on in the orders is not tenable. Accordingly, order is quashed with direction to reconsider the matter.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan submitted by Micro Capital Pvt. Ltd. for Pifiniti Movies Pvt. Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] meeting the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations is approved.
NCLT Mumbai held that resolution plan for M/s. Thwink Big Content Private Limited [Corporate Debtor] as submitted by M/s. Micro Capitals Private Limited meeting the requirements of Section 30(2) of the Code and Regulations 37, 38, 38 (1A) and 39 (4) of the Regulations is approved.
