Pr. CIT vs. M Tech India P. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use or the right to use the software.
Delhi High Court held in case of Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO upheld the order of Delhi ITAT and held that under Section 79 of the Act the set off and carry forward of loss, which is otherwise available under the provisions of Chapter VI,
The notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act.
Even in case of substituted third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act which restricts the power of the ITAT to grant stay beyond 365 days “even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee” has been struck down in Pepsi Foods 376 ITR 87 (Del) as being arbitrary
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hiralal Chunilal Jain vs. ITO that addition for alleged Bogus Purchase not sustainable as AO had made the addition solely on the basis of information received from the Sales tax department without making any independent inquiry or following the principles of natural justice before making the addition.
Pr. CIT vs. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) CUP method can be applied by a comparing a pricing formulae, rather than the pricing quantification in amount. Rule 10AB inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2012 is beneficial in nature and so retrospective w.e.f. 01.04.2002
For invoking revisionary powers the Commissioner of Income Tax has to exercise his own discretion and judgment. Here the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked the provisions of section 263 at the mere suggestion of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri although it has followed the Judgment of Bombay High Court as required to maintain judicial discipline.
CIT vs. Pritam Das Narang (Delhi High Court) – Amount received by prospective employee for loss of employment offer is a capital receipt and is neither taxable as salary and nor as Income From other sources.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court), ITA 83/2003, Dated-09.10.2015 Claim that notional interest on funds placed by the s. 10A eligible unit with the H.O. is allowable as a deduction to the H.O. and is exempt in the hands of the s. 10A unit is an unsustainable view.
