Income Tax : In the Case of Sapient Consulting Limited vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi relying upon the order of Jurisdictional High Court held that frami...
Income Tax : In the case of Shashi Gupta vs. ITO, the Delhi Tribunal while considering the effective date of transfer of immovable property for...
Income Tax : In the case of Shree Hari Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Kolkata Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of alleged excess consu...
Custom Duty : In the Case of M/s GMR Energy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal of...
Corporate Law : In the case of Shamsher singh verma vs. State of Haryana, the Apex court on the point of admissibility of evidence held that the â...
In the Case of Sapient Consulting Limited vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi relying upon the order of Jurisdictional High Court held that framing the assessment in the name of non-existent entity is not a procedural irregularity curable u/s 292B of the Act or under any other provision of the Act but it is a jurisdictional defect and hence any order passed in the name of ‘dead person’ is void ab-initio.
In the case of Shashi Gupta vs. ITO, the Delhi Tribunal while considering the effective date of transfer of immovable property for the purpose of taking benefit of time limit specified u/s 54 of the Act considered the date of ‘agreement to sell’ of an immovable property as effective date of transfer of property
In the case of Shree Hari Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Kolkata Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of alleged excess consumption claim of chemical ‘Hexane’ held that The AO has to compute income from business according to the books of accounts of the Assessee.
In the Case of M/s GMR Energy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal of the assessee and of the revenue held that Rules 4 and 9 of the Custom Valuation Rules, 1988 would only apply in case imported goods are sold for export to India.
In the case of Shamsher singh verma vs. State of Haryana, the Apex court on the point of admissibility of evidence held that the ‘compact disc’ is also a document within the meaning of Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In the case of Muller & Philpps (India) Ltd vs. ITO, Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai held that the position of law is clear. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19, that it is mandatory on the part of the AO to provide the copy of the reasons to the assessee
In Riviera Home Furnishing vs. Addl. CIT, Hon’ble Delhi High Court while dealing with the interpretation of Section 10B(4) held that the manner of determining such eligible profits has been statutorily defined in sub-section (4) of section 10B of the Act.
In the case of Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya vs ACIT, ITAT Kolkata held that although the satisfaction need not be recorded in a particular manner but from a reading of the assessment order as a whole such satisfaction should be clearly discernible.
In the case of M/s A.V. Industries vs ACIT, Mumbai Tribunal held that when the assessee shows from the record that the necessary enquiries were made by the AO and the AO had applied his mind and the view adopted by him was one of the possible views
In Mohan Jhangiani vs ACIT, Kolkata Tribunal held that Non-consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act while forming a belief that income has escaped assessment is not permissible as per law. Further, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by the Learned AO
