In the case of M/s. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur, it was held that a person who is ultimately aggrieved with the payment of the duty and challenges the order successfully can seek the refund as per Rule 11B of the act.
Clear language of section 147 of the IT Act reveals that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment, then, he can resort to such power. While it is true, as Mr. Gupta argued
In the present case, the assessee was neither absolute owner nor had surplus capital. It was providing complex services. The assessee being partnership firm was having warehousing business and local trade license authorities have accepted the assessee’s firms business to carry out warehousing business.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. held that the Joint Venture was not an Association of Persons and could not be taxed on that basis, where the JV was formed only to secure the contract
The Delhi High Court in the case of held CIT vs. M/s. DD Industries Ltd. that when the assessee is possessed of mixed funds which include its own funds in sufficient quantity, a presumption that its own funds were utilized for the advances is to be drawn
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Jain Export Private Ltd. held that, to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), it requires proper investigation and higher satisfaction of proof, which confirmed the basis for the initiation of necessary proceedings.
Delhi High court in the case of JRD Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. held that the admission of assessee under Section 132(4) where he admitted about the possession of incriminating material would suffice to initiate the necessary proceedings.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High Court held that notice could not be served to transferor company after the Amalgamation have been done. As, it will be contrary to law to serve the notice to a non-existing company.
The Hon’ble High Court, in the present case held that the licence fee payable after 31st July 1999 should be treated as revenue expenditure. Similarly, if the interest was payable on license fee for the period post 31st July, 1999, it should be treated as revenue in nature.
The Hon’ble High Court held that Rule 37BA will not apply in this case as there is only minor procedural lapse and procedure is the handmaid of justice, and it cannot be used to hamper the cause of justice.
