Hon’ble High Court while interprating section 48 held that while calculating Capital gain the expenses made will only be considered if it is made wholly or exclusive for that property. Also, the Hon’ble High Court held that The Hon’ble Tribunal was right in taking into consideration of the Judgement of Jurisdictional High Court.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Orient Express held that services of non-resident agent facilitating the completion of export obligations cannot be termed as technical services provided in India because such services are not provided for the purposes of running of the business of the assessee in India.
The petitioner was engaged in the generation of electricity by burning coal resulting in production of Fly Ash as by-product which has commercial value in the market and thus it can be said that Fly Ash is marketable.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Joy Foam P. Ltd held that the input credit of inputs need not to be reversed even in case the payment of duty has been ordered to be remitted under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
In the case of Suparesh General Insurance Services and Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Service Tax, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that whenever, a transaction of rendering services is taken out by the re- insurance broker in India in order to get the services of re-insurer abroad for assisting the client in India
In the case of Commissioner of Customs v Kamalabhai, Madras High Court held that the exported goods u/s 113 can’t be confiscated but the penalties in section 114 related to “Attempt to make exports” will be applied as Attempt is a step to actual export.
Provision of section 147 states that revenue can reopen an assessment within four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year in which return was filed, if any income escaped from assessment. If revenue wants to reopen an assessment after the expiry of four years prescribed then there must be failure on part of assessee to disclose fully
Hon’ble High Court relied on the decision of Cocanada reported in 57 ITR 306 and Sasoon V/s CIT in which it was held that carry forward unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against the capital gain from sale of depreciable asset.
Tribunal held that the explanation regarding the illness of husband offered by one of the assessee Mrs P.S Rajeshwari was untenable.The tribunal further pointed out that plea of illness between November,2010 and November 2013 and sudden regaining of health was not supported by evidence.
In another case of recovery of disputed dues by the Commercial Taxes department, by attaching the bank account of the assessee, during pendency of revision petition, the Hon ‘ble Madras High Court has directed the revision authority to dispose of the revision petition along with stay application within four weeks and kept the recovery in abeyance.
