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.
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.
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.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of Late Sushil Modi vs.CIT that the contention of the assessee that he need not prove his case and the assessing officer is bound to find corroboration by making independent enquiry is neither based on law nor is supported by reason.
Following the judgment in the case of Gajapathi Naidu (supra) the question to be asked is when did the expenditure claimed by way of deduction arise? There would have been no occasion to claim the deduction if the work-in-progress had completed its course.
The only issue before Hon’ble Court is that whether assessee can claim deduction on account to remuneration paid to partners when certified copy of instrument of change of partnership deed is not filed along with the return.
Mcleod Russel (India) Limited having its registered office at 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata has tea plantations in the state of Assam and the area is highly volatile and acts of vandalism being carried out by terrorists.
Many a times dealers face a situation where due to technical error or clerical mistake while making payment of sales tax, tax is wrongly paid in wrong account i.e. instead of paying under the head of Central sales tax, it is paid under the head State VAT/sales tax.
Presumably, the case of the assessee was that price offered by the buyer was the highest prevailing price in the market. If this is his case then it is difficult to accept the proposition that the assessee had accepted that the price fixed by the District Sub Registrar was the fair market value
