In the case of En-Vision Enviro Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, it was held that deduction u/s 80IA(4) cannot be disallowed, merely on the ground that the assessee must be owner of the infrastructure facilities and the assess should be a developer and not contractor.
In the case of ACIT vs M/s.Goel Investments Ltd., ITAT Lucknow affirmed the earlier order of ITAT in a similar case of the same assessee that once provisions of section 14A of the IT Act are to be invoked, the disallowance is to be computed as per rule 8D of the IT rules.
In the case of CIT vs M/s.Motherson Auto P. Ltd, Delhi High Court held that the monopoly enjoyed by the assessee in respect of the product manufactured, the continuous functioning, the large volume of orders at hand when the collaboration transaction took place, were sufficient basis for valuation.
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that merely because prices of land has gone up, rent cannot be increased particularly to persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act without looking into agreement in respect of rent for the earlier years and for the present year
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the Iraqi Government’s inability to pay due to sanctions imposed by it and the subsequent Central Government’s negotiating an arrangement for its payment through bonds that were to mature in future with interest did not in any way alter their character
In the case of Suparesh General Insurance Services and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Service Tax, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that whenever, a transaction of rendering services is taken out by the re- insurance broker in India in order to get the services of re-insurer abroad for assisting the client in India
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa V/s. M/s Cosme Farma Laboratories Ltd., it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of job work arrangement, the job worker should be considered as manufacturer on the basis of the arrangement
In the case of /s R.W. Promotions P. Ltd vs. ACIT Bombay High Court held that AO must gives an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whose statement is relied upon by the revenue , violation of this right is clearly a breach of principles of natural justice.
The appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract
An agreement was entered into between the respondent and Met Chem Canada Inc. to associate Met Chem Canada Inc. as a technical consultant to render technical services in relation to implementation of a project to set up a plant in India for production of Hot Rolled Steel Coils and Strips.
