In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the Iraqi Government’s inability to pay due to sanctions imposed by it and the subsequent Central Government’s negotiating an arrangement for its payment through bonds that were to mature in future with interest did not in any way alter their character
In the case of Suparesh General Insurance Services and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Service Tax, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that whenever, a transaction of rendering services is taken out by the re- insurance broker in India in order to get the services of re-insurer abroad for assisting the client in India
In the case of /s R.W. Promotions P. Ltd vs. ACIT Bombay High Court held that AO must gives an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whose statement is relied upon by the revenue , violation of this right is clearly a breach of principles of natural justice.
In this case the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act was challenged. Hon’ble HC has followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay HC in the matter of Rashmikant Kundalia and ors. V/s Union of India & ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) where the Hon’ble court has upheld the validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act
Not only that the details which were allegedly in the possession of the Assessing Officer and which is mentioned in the assessment order were not disclosed to the assessee, but also the Assessing Officer also has not disclosed any such details in the assessment order.
It is obvious that section 2(28A) is not attracted to every payment made and that the provision can be attracted only in cases where there is debtor-creditor relationship and that payments are made in discharge of a pre-existing obligation.
In the case of Commissioner of Customs v Kamalabhai, Madras High Court held that the exported goods u/s 113 can’t be confiscated but the penalties in section 114 related to “Attempt to make exports” will be applied as Attempt is a step to actual export.
In the present case the Hon’ble High court while deciding two vital issues held that the estoppels does not apply against a statute and Mere expansion of the Existing Units can’t be termed as a separate undertaking in order to claim deductions under section 10A.
Even though the excise duty was for manufacturing activity that occurred earlier, the liability to pay such additional duty did not exist in the previous years and as a result, could not have been claimed by the assessee as expenditure in the concerned previous years.
In the present facts of the case the Hon’ble High Court held that as the assessee have not taken substantial risks and was a mediator in the international transactions. Hence, Transactional Net Margin Method is a right method instead of Profit Split method.
