Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of M/s Maken Cement Industries vs. CIT that it is settled principle that the substantial question of law would only be based on the documents which were before the authorities below and also which were subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal.
The Petitioner, M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., paid the VAT on the transactions of activation of SIM cards, since earlier in case of State of UP v. Union of India, Supreme Court held the activity of activation of SIM cards as exigible to VAT.
In the case of Commissioner Central Excise vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court that substantive benefits provided by a notification cannot be denied on account of procedural lapses by the assessee.
Section 12AA, which lays down the procedure for registration, does not speak anywhere that the CIT, while considering the application for registration, shall also see that the income derived by the trust or the institution is either not being spent for charitable purpose or such institution is earning profit.
We are unable to discern any legal flaw in the proviso to Section 85(3) of the Act, that would enable us to hold that the proviso impedes the rights of the petitioner to file an appeal or is in any manner in excess of legislature power or should be read down.
The Tribunal while upholding the levy of penalty had concluded that the assessee had failed to substantiate that the gift received was genuine. The plea of the assessee that the gift was received due to his financial difficulty was also negated on appreciation of material on record.
The element of factual possession and agreement are contemplated as transfer within the meaning of the aforesaid section. When the transfer is complete, automatically, consideration mentioned in the agreement for sale has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of income
Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. M/s. Lakhani Marketing Inc, ITA No.970 of 2008 (O&M) , Dated- 02.04.2014 made reference to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Limited, 323 ITR 518 and CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd 319 ITR 204 to hold that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned.
From the reading of Section 14A the Act, it is clear that before making any disallowance the following conditions are to exist:‑ a) That there must be income taxable under the Act, and b) That this income must not form part of the total income under the Act, and
Recently P&H High Court has held in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT that identification of the flat or physical delivery of possession is irrelevant as right to hold properly stands crystalised upon allotment. The allotment of a particular flat and delivery of its possession would relate back to the allotment.
