Gauhati High Court held that order of Zimma petition is liable to be quashed as order was passed simply considering the submissions that areca nuts will be used for other purpose and not for human consumption without verifying genuineness of the claim.
ITAT Bangalore held that as software is procured from somewhere else and allotted to ground companies including the assesse, such cost allocated without any markup is reimbursement of expense and the same is not liable for TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act.
CESTAT Delhi held that the subsidy amount received under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003 using VAT-37B challan cannot be included in the transaction value for the purpose of levy of central excise duty under section 4 of the Excise Act.
Bombay High Court held that present case is not a case of lack of enquiry, however, it can be a case of inadequate enquiry. Accordingly, inadequacy of enquiry does not give jurisdiction to the CIT to invoke provisions of Section 263 prior to the insertion of Explanation 2.
CESTAT Delhi held that in case of amendment in Bill of Entry, period of limitation should be counted from the date of amendment and not from the date of assessment of Bill of Entry.
ITAT Surat held that issues raised by PCIT in his order u/s 263 are already examined by AO and AO passed the assessment order after calling for all the details and considering the reply/ documents. Accordingly, assessment order passed after due application of mind cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
ITAT Bangalore held that that the payment made by GIPL (Google India Pvt. Ltd.) to GIL (Google Ireland Limited) is not in the nature of Royalty or FTS under the Act. Accordingly, TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act not deductible.
Bombay High Court dismissed the present petition as petitioner has the option to file a statutory appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and there is no reason why petitioner cannot avail of the statutory remedy of appeal.
Suretex Prophylactics (India) Private Limited Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Karnataka High Court held that as on the date of recovery, there was no order/ adjudication made by the department quantifying the amount of tax/ duty payable by the petitioner. Accordingly, recovery of such amount is without authority of law and liable to […]
Allahabad High Court held that when public servant himself makes a demand and demand is accepted by bribe giver and bribe is paid by the bribe giver, it is a case of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
