Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of The CIT vs. M/s H. M. Steels Ltd that on an analysis of section 80IC, it must be held that any industrial undertaking or enterprise would be entitled to deduction under sub-section (1) only to the extent of profits derived from such an industrial undertaking and not on account of any rebate or incentive made available to it by the Government.
The Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 of IT act to reopen the assessment giving reasons to believe that assessee’s claim for set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against long term capital gain was not allowable as it was being set off after a lapse of 8 years.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of Subhash Chander vs. CIT that it is open for the AO to complete assessment either u/s 144 or u/s 143(3), in case compliance of notice has not been done by the assessee.
Due to the absence of any profit element in the amount paid by the agents it was held that it was purely in the nature of reimbursement of cost of MaerskNet. Further, MaerskNet was part of the shipping business and therefore subject to DTAA.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of Bikramjit Singh Gill vs. CIT that no possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of Joint development Agreement (JDA) dated 25.2.2007.
In case of CIT vs. M/s Kudu Industries, P&H High Court held that In the absence of anything to indicate that the interest free advance was made only from a particular corresponding advance received by the assessee, the advance made by the assessee would obviously be from the common pool of money.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Commercial Project Corp held that There is no obligation to deduct TDS on amounts paid as reimbursement of expenses because it do not have the character of income.
In the case of of Pr. CIT vs. M/s Hues India Pvt. Ltd., High court of Rajasthan bench at Jaipur held that that quantum and penalty proceedings under the Act stand on a different footing and relying on decision in case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in 2002 (256) ITR 243 and Malani Ramjivan
Punjab & Haryana High Court held in CIT Vs M/s Sunder Forging that to claim the deduction u/s 80IB for consecutive 10 years all the relevant conditions should be required to be fulfilled only in the initial assessment year
The Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 148 of IT act to reopen the assessment of the AY 2007-08 giving reasons to believe that there was non-disclosure of all facts with respect to deduction u/s 10A by the assessee and the assessee had taken the deduction without setting off the loss of one unit.
