Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Delhi High Court held In the case of Honey Enterprises. vs. CIT that the Assessee has sought to club the two expenses, that is, the cost of acquisition of distribution rights of films and the cost of prints for the purposes of charging the same against realizations from those films and for carrying forward the excess to the next year for the purposes of Rule 9B of the Rules.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principle CIT vs. Matchless Glass Services Pvt. Ltd. that the fact that a common address is shared by several companies may not be a sole ground to doubt the identity or the creditworthiness of the companies
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Abhinandan Investment Ltd. that there is no necessity or occasion for trader to separately determine the cost of acquisition of each item of goods sold by him; he is only required to prepare a trading account while reflecting the aggregate sales and purchases.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Bausch & Lomb Eye care (India) Pvt. Ltd. that in the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position clears.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principle CIT vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. that the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gopi Apartments: (2014) 365 ITR 411 (All.) has held that even in cases where the assessing officer of the person searched and the assessee who is sought to be assessed under Section 153C is the same
In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that as there is no change in the facts for the instant assessment year, the AO/DRP is directed to include EDCIL (the company excluded by TPO) in the final set of comparable companies.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CCEx vs. M/s Wartsila (I) Pvt. Ltd. held that exemption under notification no. 25/2002-CE is available the goods supplied should be used in the construction of warship of Indian Navy and in respect of such goods a certificate is produced from Indian Navy.
While registering, a Subscriber will provide his/her name & Permanent Account Number (PAN) details which will be validated online with the Income Tax Department. Subscriber will then select the Bank (through which KYC verification to be done), fill up the personal details and upload photograph & signature.
Notification No. 02/2016 – Customs (N.T.) Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby determines that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currencies specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II annexed hereto, into Indian currency or vice versa, shall, with effect from 08th January, 2016
A reference was received from Minister of Road Transport Highways and Shipping, Government of India. Ministry has in its letter inter alia stated that, I. It has undertaken projects with the loan assistance of World Bank under National Highways Interconnectivity Improvement Programme (NHIP). II. Central Excise duty for the goods required for the execution of works financed by International Funding Organisation like World bank is exempted under Notification No. I 08/95-Central Excise, dated 28.08.1995(amended from time to time).
