CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court -Full Bench) [2002] 256 ITR 1/123- When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind.
VAT collected by the assessee was in respect of traded goods dealt in by the assessee and in view of the provisions of section 145A of the Act, the value of the VAT was to be included as part of sale consideration of the traded goods and once the same is to be included as part of the sale goods
1. Short title and commencement.-(1) This scheme may be called the Sovereign Gold Bonds Scheme, 2015. (2) It shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
Notification No. 102/2015-CUSTOMS (N.T.) Tariff Notification in respect of fixation of T V of Edible oil, Brass, Poppy seed, Areca nut, gold and Sliver
The Bonds under this Scheme may be held by a person resident in India, being an individual, in his capacity as such individual, or on behalf of minor child, or jointly with any other individual. Person resident in India is defined under section 2(v) read with section 2 (u) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
CIT vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (Madras High Court)- In order to allow a claim under Section 10A of the Act, what all is to be seen is whether such benefit earned by the assessee was derived by virtue of export made by the assessee.
To ascertain whether the turnover would also include sale proceeds from scrap, one has to know the meaning of the term ‘turnover’. The term ‘turnover’ has neither been defined in the Act nor has been explained by any of the CBDT circulars.
No. F.3(18)/Fin(Rev-I)/2015-2016/DS-VI/886 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) and( 4) of section 13 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956), and all other powers enabling it In this behalf, the it. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, hereby, makes the following rules further to amend the Central Sales Tax (Delhi) Rules, 2005, namely: –
Delhi High Court held In the case of Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that the mere fact that there was a judgment of the Supreme Court of 1997 which was not noticed by the AO when he framed the original assessment cannot per se constitute the only material on the basis of which the assessment could have been reopened.
In the case of ACIT Vs. Dr. Nitin Laxmikant Lad Pune Bench of ITAT have held that where assessee had furnished original return of income in which he had not declared its receipts from the profession, but pursuant to the search and seizure operation, certain incriminating documents were seized
