In the instant case, it is seen, admittedly that the nonresident agents were only procuring orders abroad and following up payments with buyers. No other services are rendered other than the above. Sourcing orders abroad, for which payments have been made directly to the non-residents abroad, does not involve any technical knowledge or assistance in technical operations or other support in respect of any other technical matters.
The Hon’ble Madras High court in the above cited case held that in deciding the application for condonation of delay in filling return of income the approach of the CBDT should be justice oriented so as to advance the cause of justice.
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.
