Section 35F of the Act has retrospective operation and is not restricted to only prospective It applies to all lis which have commenced prior to or after the enforcement of the amendment, except to cases covered under the second proviso thereof.
Jagriti Plastics Limited vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes (Delhi HIgh Court),- Hon’ble Court noted that the price of the goods sold by the appellant included the component of customs duty paid at the time of their import and such component is reduced to the extent of usage of DEPB scrips by the company.
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Parayil Balan Nair vs. CIT held that the change in statement made by a party on whose original statement the notice was issued to assessee cannot be relied without proper reasoning produced in support of such change.
Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. held that passing assessment order without examining expenses by Assessing Officer which ought not to allowed is a clear case of an assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of revenue.
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision held that the penalty proceeding under Sec 271D and 271E can be initiated by Joint commissioner only and the limitation period of six months to be reckoned from the end of month of initiation of penalty proceedings by Joint
In the case of Nileswar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham Vs. CIT, High court of Kerla at Ernakulam has held that the collective disposal of the labour of the members of the society is not resulting in the generation of any income to the society.
In the case of Equity Intelligence India Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has held that (1) for reopening u/s 147 of the IT Act The requirement that the Assessing Officer must have ‘reason to believe’ cannot be taken
Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Singh Kadan that to determine whether the agricultural land is situated within 8 km of the municipal limits so as to constitute a capital asset, the distance has to be measured in terms of the approach road and not by the straight line distance on horizontal plane or as per crow’s flight.
In the case of Sandvik Asia Limited vs. DCIT, Bombay High Court held that the payment made by the Appellant in its nature is different from a payment made to protect the property. In fact, Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT 27 ITR 34
In a landmark judgement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT- V. Smt. Dimpal Yadav, it was held that where even through assesee had taken a loan in cash, since loan was routed through bank account of the assessee for the payment to Government for converting land into free
