Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. that in terms of the provision u/s 275 (1) (c), there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. that the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) subsequent to 16th December 2010
Delhi High Court held In the case of Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the current case there is no reasonable scientific method adopted by the Assessee to estimate the transit breakages to justify such provision.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Universal Precision Screws that interest on fixed deposits has the requisite characteristic of business income and has a nexus to the business activities of the Assessee.
ACIT Vs. S.P.Cold Storage (ITAT Raipur)- Mere mentioning of name in Search Warrant & Panchanama not sufficient for contemplating search against the assessee firm, Search at the residential premises of the Partners could not be deemed to be a search on the assessee firm
In the case of S.L. Shiva Raj Vs. DCIT Hyderabad Bench of ITAT uphold the penalty order by holding that the penalty is levied with reference to original return of income and not with reference to the assessment made consequent to the disclosure by assessee.
Circular No. 1011/18/2015-CX The assessee who desires to avail facility of export of bulk cargo without sealing shall write to the Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner of Central Excise with a copy to jurisdictional Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, giving details of bulk cargo to be exported with proper justification regarding difficulties faced by him in sealing of the cargo.
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of M/s Vijay Infrastructure Limited vs. ACIT that on the basis of general observations, without pointing out even a single specific defect in the vouchers or books of accounts, ad hoc disallowance made by Assessing Officer is not justifiable.
DCIT vs. Smt. Suman Jagannath Pharande (ITAT Pune) For the contention of inclusion of Canopy area in total built area, the ITAT held that built up area means the inner measurement of the residential unit at the floor level, including the projection and balconies, as increased by the thickness of the walls but does not include the common area shared with other residential units.
ITAT Hyderabad held in M/s DQ Entertainment (International) Ltd Vs ACIT that if the effect of expenses has been given in the balance sheet then the upward TP adjustment could not be made because the same had not been charged to P&L account and so same could not be be added to the income of the assessee.
