Competition Commission of India closed a complaint alleging use of dirty water and false labeling in Maggi Sauce production, holding that such food safety concerns do not amount to abuse of dominance under Section 4 of the Competition Act.
ITAT Jaipur held that the Alumni Association cannot be said to be working for the benefit of its members only and the same will amount for the benefit of public at large. Accordingly, Alumni Association is for the benefit of public and eligible for registration. Thus, appeal is allowed.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed abuse of dominance allegations against BSNL regarding a tender for Splice Closures, finding BSNL lacks a dominant position in the Market for Telecommunication Services in India.
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.
