Parliament did not seek to disturb and / or affect cases where deduction is taken twice over i.e. under Section 80IA and 80HHC of the Act on the same profit, provided it was less than the gross total income as defined in Section 80IB(5) of the Act.
Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner’s Rectification Application and considered the petitioner’s Appeal before it on merits, inter-alia, taking into account the material and case laws which has been already filed by the petitioner’s during the hearing leading to the order dated 13th February, 2015.
PCIT Vs Starflex Sealing India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) SMS communication by Mr. Pinto to the Associate of this Court is contrary to the statement made on behalf of the Revenue yesterday by the learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate for the Revenue. Requesting an Advocate to put in a […]
Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP determination that impact significantly.
Daman Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) Neither before the Assessing Officer nor at the appellate stage, Appellants adduced any convincing evidence to hold that it had retained its control over the manufacture of electronic computers at the factory premises of M/s. Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. in Silvassa. In fact, the observations in the findings […]
During the course of assessment, the assessing authority has alleged that the petitioner is not eligible to claim any input tax credit as the goods purchased by the petitioner on which input tax credit is claimed are not resold within a period of six months from the date of purchase. Such allegation was raised based on the special provision contained in Rule 53(6)(b) of the MVAT Rules, 2005.
Court held that interest on fixed deposits in the bank would be profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking. The same reasoning would apply to extend deductions under Section 80IA of the Act for the compensation received for non supply of spare parts. T
M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Ltd. Vs Board of Directors State of Bank of India (Bombay High Court) Indisputedly, order dated 16.3.2017 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 has attained the finality and has been executed. The Petitioner herein has not challenged the order dated 16.3.2017 either by filing an application under Section 17 of […]
Dulraj U. Jain Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Section 147 / Section 148– Reasons recorded do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely states that it would be atleast be Rs.1,00,000/-. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to issue the impugned […]
There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced only at the time when the seizure has been made and not during the assessment proceedings.
