Assessee then filed returns in response to the notice under Section 148, claiming a deduction under Section 80P. AO disallowed the deduction, stating that the returns were not filed within the due date under Section 139(1).
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 195 as well as section 40(a)(iii) are not attracted in case of salary paid to staff hired outside India and services were utilised outside India. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that in view of Section 35L of the Central Excise Tax as the question of law involved is regarding the taxability of the service, the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court and before High Court. Thus, the present appeal is rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued after a period of six years is barred by limitation. Accordingly, assessment proceedings under section 147 is liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court held that Section 153C as application at relevant time didn’t contemplate two tier recordal of satisfaction. Thus, proceedings u/s. 153C couldn’t have been triggered mechanically without formation of opinion by AO of non-searched person.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Indian Refractory Mortar is classifiable under CTH 38160000 and not under CTH 2610. Thus, no export duty payable on the same. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
High Court failed to examine whether the complaint, even if taken at face value, established the personal liability of the directors under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900.
It was held that considering the provisions of CBDT Circular No. 1916 and the explanation provided by the assessee, the seized gold jewellery up to the specified thresholds for each family member should be treated as explained.
Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceeding u/s. 148 initiated against non-existing company is not sustainable in law in as much as the department was already informed about the merger. Accordingly, notice quashed.
The ITAT emphasized that the appeal should be decided on merits after condoning delay where sufficient explanation exists. The CIT(A) was directed to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
