In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the building had been developed to be sold or let out with no possibility of the terrace floor being subjected to such utilization. As there is no other purpose to be served by the property held on the terrace floor
Punjab & Haryana High Court held in CIT(A) Vs M/s ITW India Limited that mere change in opinion of the AO could not amount to issue of notice for re-assessment u/s 147. AO should had reasonable tangible facts in hand before issuing notice u/s 147.
Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise Vs M/S Grip Engineers Pvt Ltd. (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)- In this Show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 22.04.2003 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the date of clearance of excisable goods invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Act
Lump-sum payments are covered under the term royalty. The agreement postulated grant of permission to use or right to use intellectual property rights or knowhow and it is not a case of outright sale.
Karnataka High Court held In the case of The CIT & ITO vs. Smt. B S Shanthakumari that the purpose of provisions u/s 54F is to ensure that assessee who received capital gains would invest the same by constructing a residential house and once it is established that consideration so received on transfer
In regard to claim of expenditure on Registrar of Companies’ fee for increase in authorized share capital, the HC held that the same could not be allowed and was also not amortizable under Section 35D (2)(c)(iii) of the Act, not being fee for initial registration of the company.
The ITAT noted that there are three stages in operational business:- (i) setting up; (ii) post setting up but before commencement of business; and (iii) commencement of business and thereafter. In case of a building contractor
CIT (Appeals) did not offer any opportunity to the assessee to make submissions with respect to the materials obtained from the survey and unilaterally rendered findings, CIT (Appeals)’s order was bad for the reason that he did not follow the procedure prescribed by the law.
The expenses claimed for transportation could not have been a valid ground for rejecting the books of account considering the fact that the transport expenses in doubt was just 5.1% of total Transport Expense.
It was held that the eligible profits are not to be subjected to the adjustment under Section 72 of the Act, and the brought forward loss from the unit eligible for the relief under Section 10B cannot be adjusted against the profits from the other units
