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.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that the mere fact that there was a judgment of the Supreme Court of 1997 which was not noticed by the AO when he framed the original assessment cannot per se constitute the only material on the basis of which the assessment could have been reopened.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Hamdard Laboratories India and Anr vs. ADIT (E) & DGIT (E) that Hamdard‟s objects are charitable in nature and its activities relating to manufacture and sale of unani medicines
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. that any changes in the audited financials like for e.g., the ‘regrouping’ of shares in the present case, if at all permissible, has to be preceded by a legally acceptable procedure adopted by the Assessee
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. that the requirements regarding recording the reasons to believe; communicating the same to the Assessee; permitting the Assessee to file the objections
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. that where there are conflicts of opinions of the various benches of the ITAT on the provision u/s 80AC of requirement of return filing before due date to claim deduction u/s 80IB (10)
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd. that the requirement of both the issuance and the service of such upon the Assessee for the purposes of Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory ‘jurisdictional requirements’.
Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs CIT (Bombay High Court)- Eyes are thus essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the applicant is not in the nature of the expenditure wholly
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. that this is basic requirement of law u/s 147 that before reopening of assessment, AO must have apply his mind to the available materials
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Escorts Ltd. that in view of the nature of the conduct displayed by Sh. Gupta, i.e. preferring an application for intervention which was rejected, being Intervener Application No. 5779/2008
