Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 1998 234 ITR 170- Following the settled trend of judicial opinion and the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court time and again, different High Courts of the country have taken the view that if an expenditure
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Sudhir Budhraja that the findings of the Tribunal are based on sufficient material and cannot be stated to be perverse. On the other hand that the AO had no material
Delhi High Court held In the case of Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific INC. vs. DDIT that the assessing officer has merely intended to revisit the concluded assessments and it is a clear case of change of opinion
Kerala High Court held In the case of Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala that It is well settled that show cause notices issued by statutory authorities particularly in case of imposition of penalty on an assessee, cannot pre-determine the guilt of an assessee.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. that in terms of the provision u/s 275 (1) (c), there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. that the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) subsequent to 16th December 2010
Delhi High Court held In the case of Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the current case there is no reasonable scientific method adopted by the Assessee to estimate the transit breakages to justify such provision.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Universal Precision Screws that interest on fixed deposits has the requisite characteristic of business income and has a nexus to the business activities of the Assessee.
CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court -Full Bench) [2002] 256 ITR 1/123- When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind.
CIT vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (Madras High Court)- In order to allow a claim under Section 10A of the Act, what all is to be seen is whether such benefit earned by the assessee was derived by virtue of export made by the assessee.
