NOTIFICATION NO. 83/2015-Customs(N.T.), Dated: August 31, 2015 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India
Compulsory manual selection of cases for scrutiny during the Financial Year 2015-2016- (a) Cases involving addition in an earlier assessment year in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs on a substantial and recurring question of law or fact which is either confirmed in appeal or is pending before an appellate authority. Instruction No. 08/2015
Madras High Court in M/s Natya sankalpaa Vs DIT Exemptions held that if the trustee would compensate the trust with the amount which trust had applied on the property of the trustee then it could not be said that the income of trust had applied to the benefit of trustee
Madras High Court held in CIT Vs M/s MIL Industries Ltd that the vacant land left on constructed property as per the construction plan of that property would not be treated as a vacant urban land because the vacant land left was the requirement of the construction plan
Madras High Court in CIT Vs K Rajinikanth (Madras High Court) held that for computing the income for calculating the deduction u/s 80IA, only the profits & Losses of the eligible business had to be taken into consideration as if it was the only business of the assessee.
Madras High Court held in CIT Vs M/s Schwing Stetter India P Ltd that the case only be opened for re-assessment u/s 147 only if there was a tangible material in the hand of AO , it could not be opened just because of the change in the opinion of AO.
Madras High court in CIT Vs M/s Sea Rose Marines Pvt Ltd (Madras High Court) held that if the notice was not issued to the assessee properly then the ITAT had the right to review its own order. The ITAT had recalled the order and gave new decision after reviewing
Madras High Court held in CIT V/s Ms Orient Express that the amendment to sec 80HHC would have prospective effect from 2005 not retrospective effect.
Madras High Court held in CIT Vs Ms Vidya Thangakumar that it would vary from case to case that whether the land in the hand of assessee is a capital asset or business stock. In the present case the assessee had got the land under settlement and it had to sell the land
The assessee is engaged in manufacture of plastic articles/components and parts by using injection moulding machines. In the present matter the moulds, used to manufacture, in this case cabinets for television sets the finished product
