The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jaya Hind Sciaky Limited held that the words belonging to as used in sec 40(2) of the Act would include assets in possession of the Company without full Ownership
In the case of PVS Multiplex (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT Delhi Bench of ITAT held that CIT can pass order u/s 263 where he can hold that AO did not made adequate inquiry. ITAT observed that there is difference between lack of enquiry and Inadequate Inquiry.
In the case of M/s Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs. DDIT (Ex.) Madras Bench of ITAT have observed the activities carried out by assessee in nature of charitable or business. After detailed examination it was held that assessee did not engaged in any business or commercial activity and hence liable for the exemption u/s 11.
In Riviera Home Furnishing vs. Addl. CIT, Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the interpretation of Section 10B(4) held that the manner of determining such eligible profits has been statutorily defined in sub-section (4) of section 10B of the Act.
CIT Vs. V/s. M/s. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In terms of Chapter X of the Act, redetermination of the consideration is to be done only with regard to income arising from International Transactions on determination of ALP.
In a judgment that is expected to have far reaching ramifications, the Delhi High Court has ruled that a female member of a Hindu Undivided Family can also be the ‘karta’. Falling prey to the patriarchal system, this role of leadership has been traditionally inherited by men of the household.
This was a case where the original assessment was completed under Section 143 (3). In other words there was a complete scrutiny of the accounts and all the affidavits of the donors furnished by the Assessee pursuant to the questionnaires issued to him by the AO. In the absence of any adverse
CIT Vs. Arvind Mills Limited (Gujarat High Court)- Whether ITAT was right holding that the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 244A of the Act for both the months when the tax was paid and when the tax refundable was adjusted irrespective of the period between such events?
CIT Vs. Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products (Bombay High Court) (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that commission payments made to nonresident sales agents on which no tax was deducted is not disallowable u/s. 40(a)(i)?
CIT Vs. V/s. M/s. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Whether on the facts and the circumstance of the case and law, the Tribunal was justified in law in restricting the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment only to the transaction between the Associated Enterprises (AEs.)?
