Udyog Bharati Vs ITO (Ahmedabad High Court)- In the first place it was not necessary for the appellant to file a cross-objection. As already noted, the assessee had raised an alternative contention of exemption under Section 11 of the Act before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in view of his opinion that the benefit of Section 10(23) of the Act is required to be granted, did not examine this alternative contention on merits. In that view of the matter, when the Revenue had carried the CIT(A)’s order before the Tribunal, it was open for the assessee to support the order on all grounds including those which may not have been accepted or examined by the CIT(A). For this purpose, cross-objection was not necessary. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal not entertaining such cross-objection on the ground of delay, to our mind, would not be fatal to the assessee’s contention. It is clarified that if the Revenue’s appeal before the Court is entertained further, it would be open for the assessee to support the orders in its favour on all grounds.
HC decides at what stage it can be held that there had been an international transaction between taxpayer and its Assocaited Enterprises
In the present case, the act of providing residential quarters by the manufacturer to its employees was voluntary. Providing further security service in such residential quarters was also an act voluntary in nature. No connection between the security service provided by the manufacturer in the residential quarters maintained for the workers as having any direct or indirect relation in the activity of manufacture of the final product. Revenue Appeal allowed
Under the provisions of section 46 of the Factories Act, it is mandatory for the employer to provide canteen services to the staff. Thus, provision of canteen services is a statutory requirement. Provision of canteen services being indispensable, it is incumbent on a manufacturer of goods, to provide the same if he desires to run his factory
CIT Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad ) -Section 11 of the Act envisages exemption of certain income of the trust registered under Section 12A of the Act. This itself may require certain scrutiny and applicability of the exemption at the hands of the Assessing Officer. Despite registration under Section 12A of the Act, it is not even the case of the assessee that without any application of mind, the Assessing Officer must grant exemption of whatever claim put forth by the assessee.
CIT Vs Manoj B Mansukhani (Gujarat High Court)- Whether where the assessee submits all the details to prove the expenses correctly, no dis-allowance can be made merely on the basis that stamp duty authority stating that the vouchers were stamped subsequently?
CIT Vs Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Ahmedabad High Court)- In the instant case, the assessee-company has let out only a very small portion (i.e. less than 10%) of its office premises to the Directorate of Petroleum. Department of Energy and Petrochemicals and that too under directions from the Government.
Dy. CIT Vs Pradip N Desai (Gujarat High Court)- The assessee company is a leasing company which is engaged in leasing of plant and machinery, motor cars, etc. to its client. It is neither the case of the assessee nor is there anything on record to indicate that the assessee uses the vehicles in question in its business of transportation or that the assessee is engaged in the business of hire.
CIT Vs Alembic Glass Industries Limited (Gujarat High Court)- If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible.
Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)- The High Court examined in detail the provisions of the Maritime Zones of India Act, 1976 (MZA) and observed that Union of India had no sovereignty over the EEZ. The Union of India only had certain sovereign rights over the EEZ. The High Court […]
