Held that deduction u/s 54F is available against new residential house acquired outside India as provisions of section 54F doesn’t use the word ‘in India’.
Held that interest earned out of the fixed deposit made from the surplus funds being not connected to the manufacturing activity and do not form an integral part of the profits derived from industrial unit is not eligible for deduction
Held that in case there are two possible views and the AO has taken one of the possible views, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise.
Held that Rule 16 allows the assessee to avail the cenvat credit of duty paid on the goods cleared by them, as if such goods are received as inputs
Held that addition, only on the basis of information received from investigation wing ignoring all the evidences filed by the assessee, is unsustainable in law
Held that as the assessee had complied sufficiently the requirement of law as stipulated in section 80IB(10) of the Act and as per the said provision it was bound to complete the building project before 31.03.2012. Deduction u/s 80IB(10) allowed.
Held that when there is a delay, a late fee u/s 234E and 200A of the Act is automatic and there is no discretion not to levy late fees with the TDS Officer.
Held that the State of Maharashtra has legislative competence to enact amendment to incorporate a condition/modifying the earlier condition for entertaining an appeal for a mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeals against the assessment orders pertaining to all the goods after 16th September 2016
Held that body corporate is not excluded from payment of service tax and covered within the definition of consulting engineer.
Held that the limitation period of six months is applicable from 1st April 2022. Accident in this case had occurred on 23.05.2019. Accordingly, limitation period of six months u/s 166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act doesn’t apply.
