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
CIT v Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd- Bombay HC observed that the appeals filed by the Revenue was in a very causal manner without indicating the basis of the challenge. Further, it was observed that Rule of law implies certainty of law.
In the case of CIT v Trend Electronics, Bombay Court held that before issuance of reopening notice for assessment, the Revenue have to furnish the reasons for it. Otherwise, the notice will be considered as bad in Law.
Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs CIT (Bombay High Court)- Eyes are thus essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the applicant is not in the nature of the expenditure wholly
Kolkatta High Court held in Navin Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT(A) that for the conclusion of search, date of last panchnama was to be seen provided keys had been handed over to the assessee. If the keys were still with the department it meant that department could resume the search any time if necessary irrespective of the fact that only restraint order was vacated on the latter date.
The Bombay High Court has held in the case of TNT India private Limited v. Principal CIT that Writ Petition could be allowed if the due procedure have not been followed while suspending the registration under Regulation 14 of Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.
In the case of CIT vs. Smt.Datta Mahendra Shah, Bombay High court held that once department has accepted decision of ITAT given in case of assessee’s son then decision given by ITAT on identical fact in assessee case has also to be accepted by department, since department works as a single unit
