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 ...
Filing of appeal under Section 260A of the Act is a serious issue. The parties who seek to file such appeals must do so after due application of mind and not raise frivolous / concluded issues. This is certainly expected of the State.
In the present facts of the Case there were two vital issues contended by the Revenue which were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court by observing that the amount received as restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is taxable only as a revenue receipt w.e.f. 1/4/2003.
ITAT Mumbai In the case of Color Craft v ITO held that the notice sent through the ‘speed post’ is totally valid in the eyes of law as ‘registered post’. The Hon’ble Tribunal while substantiating their decision relied on section 27 of General Clauses Act which mentions about ‘service by post’
In the present facts of the Case the Hon’ble Tribunal completely relied on the Judgment of M/s. Indsec Securities & Finance Ltd., ITA No. 4236/M/2012, where it was observed that Derivatives are also Stock-in-trade and accordingly the valuation will be done.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee for the year AY 2007-08 regarding the imposition of penalty contended that the Assessee were not aware of the provisions of Law in which the receipt of loan through cheque or bank draft was required.
ITAT Mumbai has in the case of M/s Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v CIT held that CIT was justified in invocation of Section 263 when AO has not made any inquiry with regard to the expenses claimed in respect of accommodation bill obtained by assessee that reduced profit of assessee by 100% instead of 15% considered by AO.
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that the basis for making the addition of Rs. 19.98 crores is the loose paper which doesn’t make any sense. Merely by making additions of all the figures mentioned in the loose paper would not justify the addition of Rs. 19.98 crores.
In the present case there were the three issues which were decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal where it was held that whenever the transactions have been made through proper banking channel, then invocation of section 68 will not be valid.
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.
