Excise Duty : In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that Section 35FF of the Excise Act indicates that interest ...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 385 of IPC pertaining to extortion as...
Corporate Law : Unravel the Rahul Gupta vs CPIO case where the CIC upheld that public authorities are not obliged to provide opinions or advice u...
Corporate Law : Rajasthan High Court upheld order of Electricity Ombudsman, which allowed recovery of transformation losses and pro-rata transform...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held in case of DCIT v Hitz FM Radio India Ltd. that expenditure related to licence fee and royalty which helps merely ...
Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT v Smt. Priyanka Singhania that if the search warrant was issued in the name of the father of Assessee, then the proceedings of the search and seizure against the assessee was totally void and bad in Law.
In the case of CIT v Sri Chand Gupta, Delhi High Court held that during search and seizure under section 132, any declarations made by the assessee could not discharge his liability to the extent of cash seized as Section 132(5) of the Act does not deal with appropriation of the assets seized.
In the Case of DIT v M/s Ericsson Communications Ltd. , Delhi High Court held that when the Industrial policy of Government of India mentions that there should be no royalty paid to the parent foreign collaborator company by the Indian wholly subsidiary company then the reversal
In the case of CIT v Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble High Court held that whenever a subsidiary company is getting subsidy from it’s holding company, then the amount of subsidy which has not been spent will not be considered as income of the Assessee.
In the case of Govats Foundation v ITO (Exemption) it is held by ITAT-Hyderabad that the approval u/s 80G(5) could be granted to charitable institution if the certificate granted u/s 12A has not been withdrawn.
ITAT Ahmedabad has held in the case ITO v Someshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. that the TDS would be deducted u/s 194C only when the amount of single contract exceeds Rs. 20,000 or the amount exceeds Rs. 50,000 in aggregate which has been given to a particular person in a year.
Supreme Court held In the case of Modern Hotels v CCE that the amount paid for the renewal of licence under Foreign Liquor Rules under the Amnesty scheme will be treated as an adjustment toward interest.
Supreme Court has held in the case of CCE v M/s Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. of India held that the surrendering of advance licence in order to receive the products at lower rate will be considered as “additional consideration” under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Supreme Court held In the case of CCE v. Hindustan Unilever that Vaseline intensive Care Heel Guard is a medicament as it is produced under the Drug Licence and also before classifying any particular product the dominant function have to be considered.
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of Sri Som Dutt v ACIT that whenever, the money has been received from overseas, then the onus is on the Assessee to prove that all the transactions are bonafide when he is claiming that the amount has been received as Capital Receipt.
