CIT Vs. V/s. M/s. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Whether on the facts and the circumstance of the case and law, the Tribunal was justified in law in restricting the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment only to the transaction between the Associated Enterprises (AEs.)?
In the case of Advance Netways Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hon’ble Bombay High Court denied to interfere in the order of CESTAT who directed to deposit 50 % of total duty payable and 10 % out of penalty payable.
In case of DIT (E) Vs. M/s Jasubhai Foundation, BOmbay High Court upheld the decision of ITAT in which it was held that section 10 and section 11, though mentioned in same chapter, but conditions mentioned in both sections are mutually exclusive from each other.
CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (Bombay High Court) The three grounds which have been projected and emphasised pertain to treatment of total income as income from house property and allowing deduction under section 24 ignoring the fact that the income was received from the business asset (unsold flats) shown as closing stock.
CIT Vs. M/s Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In this case Hon’ble Court considered question of law that whether claim for set off of unabsorbed business loss which was brought forward in subsequent AY against the profit of section 10 A is allowable or not.
Bombay High Court held In the case of M/s Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd. vs. DCIT that Section 292 uses the word ‘may presume’ and not ‘shall presume’ or ‘conclusively presume’. The words ‘may presume’ are in the nature of discretionary presumption different from a compulsory presumption.
Bombay High Court held In the case of Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs.CIT that eyes are an important organ of the human body and is essential for the efficient survival of a human being. Eyes are thus essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many.
The respondent assessee had claimed depreciation in respect of its machinery valued at Rs.16.96 lacs which was used in its business of refining edible oil. The machinery had not been used during the assessment year as the respondent has discontinued its business of refining edible oil.
The Petitioner is carrying on business of fabrication and erection of plants, structures etc. The Petitioner undertakes the projects on turn key basis as well as on work contract basis. The Petitioner has been registered as an assessee with the Service Tax Department since 2008.
In a judgement dated 19-01-2015 in the case of CIT-8 Vs. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd., the Hon’ble Bombay High Court while dismissing the appeal, passed stringent strictures and gave directions to the Revenue Authorities when the Revenue choose to persist with the Appeal
