Madras High Court held that issue relating to pre-closure premium was already considered and allowed by the assessing authority. Thus, invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 for mere disagreement with the view of the assessing authority is unjustified in law.
ITAT Hyderabad held that benefit of section 115BAB of the Income Tax Act granted even if Form 10ID filed prior to commencement of manufacturing activity, if assessee proves the commencement of manufacturing for the subsequent assessment year.
Supreme Court held that press release cannot be the basis of changing the law. Exemption under the Customs Act has to be via issuance of notification as provided by the Customs Act. Thus, press release cannot be basis for giving away with old legal regime.
Since 1986 to 1997, Petitioner acquired shares, in tranches, of Respondent No.4-Company. The Petitioner subsequently sold some of these shares. In April 2007, the shares of Rs.10/- each of Respondent No.4-Company were split into shares of Rs.5/- each.
Bombay High Court held that no case has been made by any of the petitioners to bypass the statutory alternate remedies. Accordingly, petition dismissed on account of available alternative remedies.
CESTAT Allahabad held that denial of cenvat credit, merely because the credit is availed on the basis of debit note, not justified since debit note covered all the requisite particulars. Accordingly, cenvat allowed on the basis of debit note.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that exemption u/s. 11(1)(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act duly admissible to Rajkot Urban Development Authority (RUDA) since the activities were not commercial in nature.
This Appeal has been preferred by the son of Shri Jai Prakash, a deceased constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as his father and another constable died while on duty on 22.11.1997.
Madras High Court held that recovery action against the Directors of the company under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Revenue Recovery Act not justified since company is non-existent.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction and development works. The petitioner performed various contracts under the respondent No. 2. In respect to those works, though the petitioner had received the contractual amount after deduction of tax.
