In the case of Flevel International V/S Commissioner Of Central Excise, it was held by Delhi High Court that the denial of an opportunity of cross-examination of a witness whose statements have been relied upon in the adjudication order would vitiate the order of adjudication. In the present case
In the case of M/s. Rupa & Co. Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that what is contained in finished product is only a quantity of all the inputs of the same weight as that of the finished product
The Delhi High Court Has Held In the case of Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax that both the assessee as well as the department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal.
In the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Others , Bombay High Court inter-alia held that the assessee herein being a Cooperative Bank also governed by the Reserve Bank of India and thus the directions with regard to the prudential norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India
CIT Vs.Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assesse received interest on inter-coporate deposit which was offered to tax in earlier years. Subsequently, assesse made certain provision for bad debts.
In the case of Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. Vs. UOI Assesse’s case for exemption under section 10A was allowed in earlier years by Tribunal. During the relevant year, the Tribunal disallowed assessee claim.
In a Historic/Landmark Judgment Delhi High Court in the case Avinash Gupta Vs. UOI has although not allowed extension of due date for filing ITR for AY 2015-16 but instructed the Govt. to ensure availability of forms for tax audit from the beginning of next assessment year.
Bombay High court held In the case of R.B. Shreeram Durgaprasad (P) Ltd. vs. The CIT that concept of double taxation is not attracted in the present matter. The Export firm has to pay tax as it has actually utilized that amount as its income while the assessee has to pay tax as it attempted to conceal that income.
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Nagpur Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. that in order to attract ceiling u/s 40(c), the payment must be a periodical payment. A Lumsum payment or one time payment is not covered under section 40(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High court held In the case of CIT vs. Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. that following the judgment of (2003) 264 ITR (38) (Bom.) (CIT vs. Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.)
