DCIT vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co Ltd (Supreme Court) After going through the detailed order passed by the High Court, we find that the main issue which is involved in this case is not at all addressed by the High Court.
Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. CCEC (Supreme Court of India) The legal heirs submitted that a reading of Sections 2(f), (3), Section 4(3)(a), Section 11 and 11A as they stood at the relevant time would show that unlike the provisions of the Income Tax Act
In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. M/S Sarvotham Care Limited, it was held that wherein the shampoo having medicinal properties and the dominant use of shampoo was medicinal.
As per the direction of the Supreme Court of India vide order dated November 5, 2015 in the matter of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. Versus Union of India (WV Petition (s) (Civil) No(s). 13/2015)
Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)- there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine and further observed that the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters.
To ascertain whether the turnover would also include sale proceeds from scrap, one has to know the meaning of the term ‘turnover’. The term ‘turnover’ has neither been defined in the Act nor has been explained by any of the CBDT circulars.
Supreme Court held In the case of M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT that Act does not clothe the taxing authorities with any power or jurisdiction to re-write the terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties with each other at arm’s length
JCIT vs Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya 95 ITD 313 (Mum.) Section 54 Benefit cannot be reduced proportionately merely because in the Purchase or Sell deed of Property Purchased or Sold name of a Family Member incorporated as co-owner for the sake of convenience
Supreme Court in the case of M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited v CCE held that the particular product which has been manufactured by the assessee for captive consumption will only be considered for any kind of exemption if covered by any exemption notification.
In case of CCE v M/s Fitrite Packers, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the product could be termed as ‘Manufactured’ only when there is a transformation in the original article and this transformation should bring out a distinctive or different use in the article.
