In the case of M/s.Karur K.C.P.Packagings Limited vs. The Commissioner of Customs, it was held by Madras High Court that that where any drawback payable to the claimant is not paid within a period of one month from the date of filing a claim for payment
Hon’ble High Court while interprating section 48 held that while calculating Capital gain the expenses made will only be considered if it is made wholly or exclusive for that property. Also, the Hon’ble High Court held that The Hon’ble Tribunal was right in taking into consideration of the Judgement of Jurisdictional High Court.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Orient Express held that services of non-resident agent facilitating the completion of export obligations cannot be termed as technical services provided in India because such services are not provided for the purposes of running of the business of the assessee in India.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of B4U International Holdings held that the agents of the foreign company if not exclusively working for assessee and they are not decision makers with no power of concluding contracts and as such their activities being incidental in nature.
In the case of Price Waterhouse & Anr. Vs CIT, Calcutta High Court through an interim order opined that if there was no relevant material in the hands of the Income Tax authorities with which it has come to an incontrovertible conclusion that the writ petitioner no.1 was an ‘associated enterprise’
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that had the AO cared, the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the share applicants would have been apparent. Even otherwise
The petitioner was engaged in the generation of electricity by burning coal resulting in production of Fly Ash as by-product which has commercial value in the market and thus it can be said that Fly Ash is marketable.
Delhi High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Customs vs. Shri Ram Niwas Verma held that acceptance of application by settlement commission in respect of gold which is covered in sec 123 is without jurisdiction as 3rd proviso to Sec 127B (1) provide a clear bar on the applications made in respect of goods covered u/s 123.
The ITAT president has constituted a special bench of the three members to hear the case of assessee by exercising his powers u/s 255 (3). A notice fixing date of hearing before special bench was served upon the assessee.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Orion Enterprises held that as per Basmati Rice Rules if the rice doesn’t qualify as Basmati rice then the same cannot be exported as the export of non-Basmati rice is illegal and liable to confiscation.
