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.
The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the above cited case held that there must be a direct nexus between the material coming to the notice of the Income-Tax Officer and the formation of his belief that income has escaped assessment.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of Harish Ahuja vs. CIT that in this case AO was not in position to verify the proper Gross profit rate because the assessee has not maintained the stock register.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alcatel Lucent Canada held that the income earned from the supply of hardware equipment where the embedded software facilitates the functioning of the equipmentcannot be taxed as royalty payments for use of software because there could not be any independent use of such software.
CIT Vs M/s Global Reality (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The next question that needs to be answered, is, whether the stipulation in Section 80IB(10)(a) can be said to be directory. Considering the prodigious benefit offered in terms of Section 80IB to the assessee (hundred per cent of the profits derived in any previous year relevant […]
In the case of Pespsi Foods Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, (Delhi High Court) has held that third proviso to section 254 (2A) through the insertion of the expression – ‘even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee’– by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008
HC held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount not being bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified.
Whether the CESTAT is empowered to grant or extend Stay of recovery of demand beyond 365 days from the date when the Stay Order was initially passed, notwithstanding that the delay in disposal of the appeal was not attributable to an assessee?
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs The Executive Engineer Court of Karnataka( Kalaburagi Bench) has held that if a person executing the work, purchases the materials from a person other than the customer
Delhi High Court has held in the case of DIT vs. M/s Lufthansa Cargo India that Retrospective amendments seeking to tax income of non-residents does not affect the source rule’. The amendment makes no any difference to the non-taxability of payments made to foreign companies if the income accrues abroad – Section 9.
