As per CBDT Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016, it is clear that the assessee has option to claim deduction in subsequent years i.e. he can choose initial assessment year for claiming deduction even post commencement of business.
Madras High Court held In the case of M/s. Anusha Investments Ltd. vs. ITO that in the present transaction, admittedly there is no tax liability on the purchase of shares. As a result, the question of deducting tax at source and the assessee violating the provisions of Section 195 does not arise
In the case of M/s Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs. DDIT (Ex.) Madras Bench of ITAT have observed the activities carried out by assessee in nature of charitable or business. After detailed examination it was held that assessee did not engaged in any business or commercial activity and hence liable for the exemption u/s 11.
M/s.Peacock Apparels (P) Ltd vs. ITO (Madras High Court), Except to state that the EOU has not been approved by the Specific Authority, the first respondent has not assigned any other reason to reopen the assessment order.
JVS Export vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) As per dictum laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others, (2003) 259 ITR 19 that pursuant to the notice issued by the assessing officer, he is bound to consider the objections of the parties
CIT vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (Madras High Court)- In order to allow a claim under Section 10A of the Act, what all is to be seen is whether such benefit earned by the assessee was derived by virtue of export made by the assessee.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. CESTAT, it was held by Madras High Court that the assessee is entitled to Cenvat credit on the capital goods/inputs used in the manufacture of goods which are exempted and which are cleared without payment of duty on Job work basis.
In the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs M/s.Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd., it was held by High Court of Madras that the assessee is entitled for automatic refund of the Extra Duty Deposit made pending finalisation of the provision assessment without filing an application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Madras High Court held In the case of M/s. Chandra CFS and Terminal Operators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs that as per Regulation 11(2) the Commissioner of Customs may in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, suspend the approval granted to a Customs Cargo Service
In the case of M/s. Rupa & Co. Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that what is contained in finished product is only a quantity of all the inputs of the same weight as that of the finished product
