In the case of Shri Dharampal Lalchand Chug Vs CCE, it was held by Bombay High Court that the period of limitation prescribed in section 11A of the Act cannot be enlarged. Once it is possible to scrutinise and verify the compliance of the terms and conditions on which the exemption has been issued in this case
In the case of Vodafone India Ltd. V/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by Bombay High Court that by following the principles laid down in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, a telecom service provider is not entitled to credit of duty paid on towers
The assessee company was incorporated on 31.05.2005 pursuant to the reorganization of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board.During the course of survey conducted on 18.12.2008, it was noticed that the assessee had made payment to MSETCL and PGCIL under the BPTAs without deducting tax at source.
The matter involves three assessment years, namely,2010-11,2011-12and 2012-13.The Assessee firm was engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and nonferrous metals. During a scrutiny assessment related to A.Y. 2010-11
The assessee company was engaged in the making of High Pressure Gas Cylinder and compressed natural gas cylinders. The assessee has subsidiary company at Dubai.The A.O. disallowed interest as per ruled 8D read with section 14A of the Act w.r.t to dividend income of Rs.3191330/-
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Vijay Udhyog vs. CIT that where two opinion or views are available and one of the view is taken by the AO, cannot be a basis for revision of order u/s 263. Also none of the clauses of section 80I(2)(i) to (iv) prohibit the assessee from taking other industrial undertakings on hire and use it for the purpose of manufacturing activity.
In the case of ACIT Vs Shri Kamlakar Moghe it was held by Nagpur Bench of Bombay HC that deduction u/s 54EC can be claimed by the assessee despite making the investment in REC bonds beyond six months if the delay was due to non-availability of the REC Bonds.
In this case of United Shippers Ltd. Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) reopening u/s 148 was challenged by way of writ on the ground that assessment was reopened after the expiry of four years and reason recorded did not indicate any material which the petitioner has not fully and truly disclosed in the assessment proceedings.
It was held by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and Goa in the case of CIT V/s M/s Sai Prasad Properties Limited that an application under section 245D(2C) of the Act has to be disposed of after considering the objections raised by CIT
In was held by High Court of Bombay and Goa in the case of M/s V M Salgaoncar Sale International V/s ACIT, that objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded U/s 148 of the Act can not be disposed off on an imaginary ground by the assessing Officer.
