It is painful to note that in spite of various monitoring mechanisms in existence, such occurrence could not be avoided. The matter has been viewed seriously and all the adjudicating authorities are directed to pass adjudication orders within time limits as prescribed, so that the above said instance is not repeated in future.
In the case of Avinash Gupta and Ors V/s Union of India and Ors It was held by Delhi High Court that in this case it is pleaded that the petition is in the nature of public interest. However, the petition is not drafted as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
As per The Companies (CSR policy) Rules, 2014 ‘Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)’ means and includes but is not limited to: 1) Projects or programs relating to activities specified in Schedule VII to the Act or 2) Projects or programs relating to activities undertaken by the Board in pursuance of recommendations of the CSR Committee as per declared CSR policy subject to the condition that such policy covers subjects enumerated in Schedule VII of the Act.
In this case of United Shippers Ltd. Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) reopening u/s 148 was challenged by way of writ on the ground that assessment was reopened after the expiry of four years and reason recorded did not indicate any material which the petitioner has not fully and truly disclosed in the assessment proceedings.
In the case of ITO vs. M/s Besto Tradelink (P) Ltd ITAT Ahemdabad) – Assessing Officer has computed the other disallowances of interest amount and the one under section 40A(3) only on the basis of assessee’s accurate particulars already submitted on record in the course of scrutiny.
In the case of, M/s. Aidees Electronics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CCE it was held by Madras High Court that if the original authority had invoked the enhanced period of limitation on only one particular ground viz., suppression of fact and the appellate authority had set aside that finding
It was held in the case of CIT v/s South India Corporation Ltd. by Kerla High Court That the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction of the belated payments to the Provident Fund in view of the section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income tax Act.
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the case of Jose Kuruvinakunnel vs. CIT held that the I.T Act does not envisage double taxation and assessment should be in the hands of the right person and that there cannot two assessments for the same income.
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the case of Beacon Projects Private Limited held that a sum paid can be termed as interest only when the same is paid in respect of a pre-existing debt obligation and there existed a debtor-creditor relationship.
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the case of Kerala Kamudi P. Ltd. held that the assessee is allowed to follow hybrid system of accounting for different nature of transactions provided the same is followed consistently and income can be deduced from such accounting.
