ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT vs. J.B. Eng. Works that that the assessee had transferred independent interests in two different assets and therefore the Capital Gains arising on the assignment of leasehold interest in the land being a capital asset was rightly offered for tax as Long
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of Shri Jeevan Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT that there is no specific provision in the Act requiring the assessment made under section 153A to be after issue of notice under section 143(2). In the case of Ashok Chaddha vs. CIT
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Parametric Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. that the use of current year’s data is mandated by the relevant I.T. Rules, 1962 and by not adhering to this, the assessee’s TP Study was rendered unreliable.
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of M/s Treadstone International vs. ACIT that we find no merit in the contention of the assessee that every time new Officer should issue a notice u/s 143(2). Whenever jurisdiction is transferred from one Officer to other Officer the subsequent officer
ITAT Delhi held In the case of A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd. vs. CIT that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) held that where the order u/s 263 records that the inquiries were not sufficient and further inquiries
In this case of Trend Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Delhi Bench of ITAT observed that whether revenue can argue against the order passed by AO in pursuance to the directions of DRP. The ITAT held that it is not permissible to argue any issue decided by AO by DR before tribunal.
NOTIFICATION NO. 147/2015-CUSTOMS (N.T.) In exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest, hereby specifies the class of goods, namely ‘crude’, imported and stored in underground rock caverns, in respect of which no interest shall be charged under the said section 61.
In the case of Shamsher singh verma vs. State of Haryana, the Apex court on the point of admissibility of evidence held that the ‘compact disc’ is also a document within the meaning of Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In the case of Muller & Philpps (India) Ltd vs. ITO, Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai held that the position of law is clear. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19, that it is mandatory on the part of the AO to provide the copy of the reasons to the assessee
In Riviera Home Furnishing vs. Addl. CIT, Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the interpretation of Section 10B(4) held that the manner of determining such eligible profits has been statutorily defined in sub-section (4) of section 10B of the Act.
