Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd. vs. CIT held that once the income has been assessed u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit it cannot be treated as business income because it is not an income classifiable under any heads of income as per Sec 14.
Delhi High Court Held In the case of I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd vs CIT that AO cannot invoke Section 14A read with Rule 8D (2) without recording his satisfaction and noted that the recording of satisfaction as to why the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee was unreasonable
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Council for Citrus and Agri Juicing in Punjab Vs. CIT(TDS) held that the money lent by the public sector undertaking from the corpus fund created out of govt. sanctioned funds could not be deemed as loans advanced by the govt.
In the case of CIT vs. Smt.Datta Mahendra Shah, Bombay High court held that once department has accepted decision of ITAT given in case of assessee’s son then decision given by ITAT on identical fact in assessee case has also to be accepted by department, since department works as a single unit
Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT v Smt. Priyanka Singhania that if the search warrant was issued in the name of the father of Assessee, then the proceedings of the search and seizure against the assessee was totally void and bad in Law.
In the case of CIT v Sri Chand Gupta, Delhi High Court held that during search and seizure under section 132, any declarations made by the assessee could not discharge his liability to the extent of cash seized as Section 132(5) of the Act does not deal with appropriation of the assets seized.
In the Case of DIT v M/s Ericsson Communications Ltd. , Delhi High Court held that when the Industrial policy of Government of India mentions that there should be no royalty paid to the parent foreign collaborator company by the Indian wholly subsidiary company then the reversal
In the case of CIT v Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble High Court held that whenever a subsidiary company is getting subsidy from it’s holding company, then the amount of subsidy which has not been spent will not be considered as income of the Assessee.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riso India Private Limited held that the Special Additional Duty of Customs is also a duty leviable under Customs Act,1962 and all the procedures regarding demand, refund , drawback as applicable to all other custom duties would also be applicable to SAD.
CIT vs. AMCO Power Systems Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee would be entitled to carry forward and setoff of business loss despite the assessee not owning 51% voting powers in the company as per Section 79 of the Act by taking the beneficial share holding of M/s. Amco Properties & Investments Ltd.?
