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 ...
The Delhi High Court in the case of held CIT vs. M/s. DD Industries Ltd. that when the assessee is possessed of mixed funds which include its own funds in sufficient quantity, a presumption that its own funds were utilized for the advances is to be drawn
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Jain Export Private Ltd. held that, to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), it requires proper investigation and higher satisfaction of proof, which confirmed the basis for the initiation of necessary proceedings.
Delhi High court in the case of JRD Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. held that the admission of assessee under Section 132(4) where he admitted about the possession of incriminating material would suffice to initiate the necessary proceedings.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High Court held that notice could not be served to transferor company after the Amalgamation have been done. As, it will be contrary to law to serve the notice to a non-existing company.
The Hon’ble High Court, in the present case held that the licence fee payable after 31st July 1999 should be treated as revenue expenditure. Similarly, if the interest was payable on license fee for the period post 31st July, 1999, it should be treated as revenue in nature.
The Hon’ble High Court held that Rule 37BA will not apply in this case as there is only minor procedural lapse and procedure is the handmaid of justice, and it cannot be used to hamper the cause of justice.
The Hon’ble High Court in the present case held that when the assessee claimed and was granted modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules at the relevant time itself indicates that for purposes of excise, the assembling of cassettes amounted to manufacture.
The Hon’ble High court in the present case held that the assessee developed an infrastructure facility/project and was not required to maintain or operate, it was entitled to cost, plus the margin of income or profit. Assesee would be entitled to deduction under section 80-IB (10).
The Hon’ble High Court in this case held that when there is an assumption that the assessee did not maintain quantitative details of ingredients such as mixing gum, starch and oil, the conclusion could not be affirmed. As, decisions can’t be on the basis of Assumptions or Presumptions.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the property in question was sold by assessee’s late husband before his death and the receipts out of the sale proceeds are deposited in a joint bank account that of assessee and her late husband. Once this is the position the entire receipts are to be assessed in the hands of late husband although through legal heirs by adopting the procedure prescribed u/s. 159 of the Act.
