ITAT Ahmedabad ruled remuneration to partners cannot be disallowed solely due to an unnotarized or backdated supplementary partnership deed, upholding partner remuneration claims.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses assessee’s jurisdictional objection in N.S. Pandya vs ITO, upholding assessment as no prior address change or return filing was proven.
CESTAT Chennai held that active collusion of appellant i.e. Custom House Agent [CHA] with High Sea Seller not proved hence penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 unwarranted in absence of intention to evade payment of duty.
ITAT Chennai held that salary income for services rendered in China is not taxable in India. Accordingly, benefit of exemption under Article 15(1) of the DTAA between India-China. Thus, order set aside and appeal allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that imposition of penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act for attempting smuggling of Red Sander woods unwarranted due to lack of valid evidences. Accordingly, penalty is dropped and appeal allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the recovery proceedings initiated by the Customs authorities under section 28AAA of the Customs Act are not sustainable as DGFT authorities have not cancelled MEIS licenses in question.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the books of accounts stood rejected under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and profits estimated, there cannot be addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that in view of the retrospective amendment u/s. 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act the assessee is eligible to pay tax at lower rate @10% instead of 20% on sale of unlisted share even in absence of filing the claim by way of revised return.
ITAT Delhi held that doubting the whole transaction of sale of shares as sham transaction merely on the basis of discrepancy in the record maintained by ROC not justifiable. Accordingly, appeal allowed stating that suspicion howsoever strong cannot taken place of evidence.
Bombay High Court held that that the stage which has been contemplated under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA, 2002] will be after the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of the scheduled offences.
