M/s. Stanadyne Amalgamations Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s. AVO Carbon India Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) Madras High Court has allowed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs/raw material at the time of debonding of an EOU into DTA. The Court observed that proviso in Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inserted in 2008 […]
Khivraj Tech Park Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) The petitioner was granted permission for setting up a ‘Software Technology Park’ and a communication dated 29-11-2005 was sent by the Ministry. Since their imports had already arrived during October-November 2005, an amendment of the effective date of approval to 4-4-2005 was sought, […]
Shares purchased pursuant to the order of Company Court would not amount to capital gain and rather to be treated as a dividend.Whenever a company distributes its profits to its shareholders, the profit so disbursed, will amount to dividend and Dividend Distribution Tax at 15% was required to be paid by assessee u/s 115O.
Where capital gain arising from transfer of capital asset, being machinery or plant or land or building used for the purposes of business of an industrial undertaking situated in an urban area effected in the course of or in consequence of the shifting of such industrial undertaking to any area other than an urban area, assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 54G.
Employees’ contribution to EPF and ESIC deposited beyond the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) would not be eligible for deduction even if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income tax under section 139(1).
Expenditure on renovation of building taken on lease had to be treated as capital expenditure in view of Expln. 1 to section 32(1), even if assessee was not owner of such building during the period of occupation.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Madras Cements Ltd. (Madras High Court) Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal against the CESTAT order wherein the Tribunal had set aside the penalty and allowed Cenvat credit on MS items used for fabrication of support structures, while remanding the matter for computation of credit. The Tribunal had […]
M/s. West Asia Exports & Imports Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) We know that Sec 41(1) of Income Tax Act 1961, where there is cessation of any trading liability then the benefit accruing on account of cessation of such liability will be deemed to profits and gains of business or profession whether or not such […]
Reassessment after period of four years on the ground that assessee had claimed excess deduction under Section 80IB(10) was not valid where assessee had made true and full disclosure and had consciously made only a proportionate claim under Section 80IB(10), which was rightly allowed by AO at the time of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3).
Issuing of show cause notice in a template-like manner cannot be challenged on basis that it was not clear as to whether the same had been issued for concealing particulars of income’ or furnishing of inaccurate particulars’ of such income merely by reason of mistake or defect i.e., mistake or defect of issuing it in a template and not scoring of the relevant ground and leaving out the applicable ground.
