Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Kamarhatty Company Ltd. that the views expressed by the tribunal are as per law. Assessee has made the gratuity provision in respect of employees who have already retired.
The petitioner has filed an appeal being ITA No.825/Del/2014 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 31.10.2013. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, that is, on 31.03.2014, had granted stay of the demand which had been raised subsequent to the said order
In the case of Srikant Bagla Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., it was held that an assessee cannot be benefitted when it is proved that the assessee had a substantial contribution to make towards the delay in the legal proceedings.
Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. ACIT In this case the writ petition was filed by the Assessee in which the AP High Court while dismissing the writ petition held that whenever an order is made under the re-assessment
For the assessment year 2008-09 the assessee had reported a tax exempt income to the tune of Rs. 18,26,360/- amongst other heads of income. The AO added back Rs. 19,96,242/- under Section 14A. While doing so, the AO applied Rule 8D by taking into consideration the total quantum of interest other than that invested
The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the case of CCE Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd held that reinsurance service is an input service for rendering insurance service because the reinsurance is an integral part of insurance service rendered by the insurance co. and cannot be termed as an activity post completion of insurance services.
In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V. S. Dempo & Company Ltd, Goa High Court has held that the principal amount of loan taken for purchase of capital assets was on capital account and therefore on cessation of its repayment there is no occasion to apply Section 41 (1) of the Act. And resultant income should only be treated as capital receipt.
High Court Kolkatta held in CIT,TDS Vs Khadim Shoes Pvt Ltd that the order passed by the CIT(A) should contain reasons for its conclusions of decisions. An order without reasons is of no relevance. So the appeal had been dismissed.
CIT vs. Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) The question no.(h) which related to deletion of disallowance of interest on account of borrowed capital is delivered by ITAT based on own previous year judgment but no finding was arrived indicating that the borrowed capital was not utilized for the purpose of earning exempt income. So matter remanded back to the AO.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of M/s Maken Cement Industries vs. CIT that it is settled principle that the substantial question of law would only be based on the documents which were before the authorities below and also which were subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal.
