Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of The Jalandhar Iron and Steel Merchants Association(Regd), Jalandhar vs State of Punjab has held that the State Government did not have power to legislate Rule 21(8) of Punjab VAT Rules, 2005 before 01.04.2014 so as to restrict ITC on stock of iron and steel goods as existing on the date of reduction of tax on such goods.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of The CIT vs. M/s Carrier Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration that provision for warranty based on personal experience and past trends is an allowable expenditure. The division bench judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Majestic Auto Ltd.
The High Court held that the assessee was bound to get its accounts audited under section 64 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and the delay in audit by the auditor appointed under the Act was not attributable to the assessee.
The petitioner was a firm of auditors. During the course of search and seizure operations conducted against EMAAR, the laptop computers of two employees of the petitioner, who were conducting an audit of EMAAR, were seized by the Deputy Director.
In the absence of any specific provision under which the so called notional income on advances, could be brought to tax, we do not see as to how the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax can be sustained.
The case of the assessee is that they did not charge interest on that advance and in consideration of the same the assessee got the premises it a very low rent of rupees two per sq feet in a prime locality of Calcutta.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Smt. Usha Saboo that although the agreement did not bifurcate the consideration towards the various covenants in the agreement, the assessee was entitled to bifurcate the same and apportion a part thereof towards the negative covenants.
In the case of M/s. Nepa Agency Co. Pvt. Ltd & Anr v Union of India, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that whenever in a statute a remedy is provided or an alternative remedy is there, then there is no need to entertain the Writ Petitions.
Calcutta High Court Held in the case of M/s Budge Budge Company Ltd Vs CIT if the business had been suspended for some period of time without any malice contention of the assesse and the plant was still ready for use during that suspended period also
ITAT held in CIT( Kolkatta) Vs Merlin Holding Private Limited that it was the question of the fact to decide between the share income as an investment income or as a business income. Mere Frequency of the transactions in the shares did not determine the transaction to be business transaction or investment transaction.
