M/s LG Electronics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) The Sale Tax regime came to an end on 13th May, 1994. Thereafter, Trade Tax regime came into force by U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995 with effect from 14.5.1994 but, the scheme of the erstwhile that continued without any change in […]
The claim of the Respondent that he could not have reduced his prices after the tax reduction due to stiff competition from other exempted and compounding manufacturers, resistance from his customers, increase in the raw material and transportation costs and he was providing robust profit margins and discounts to his dealers cannot be accepted as the present proceedings are only conecerned with ascertaining whether the Respondent had passed on the benefit of rate reduction to his customers or not
Jefferris India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) When there was no willful concealment and mistake involved human error, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) deleted
Assessee having already set up its business was eligible to claim basic administrative expenditure as business expenditure though business operations were commenced in the subsequent year.
As regards comparability of Maple e–solutions Ltd., it has now been well settled through various judicial precedents that this company cannot be treated as comparable due to unreliability of its financial data.
CIT Vs Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In the present case, it has been recorded that the doctors were entitled to admit, investigate and provide treatment to the patients and that the doctors would be responsible for their clinical care. The doctors were responsible for supervising the sub-ordinate staff […]
Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) In this case the petitioner raised objections promptly after withdrawing the petition from this Court, would not in any manner dilute the fact that it was on the ground of the petitioner’s conduct that the Assessing Officer was left with little time to dispose of […]
M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (TDS) (ITAT Hyderabad) We have perused the order of the Tribunal and find that in Para 8 of the order, the Tribunal has considered the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 201(1) also to 201(1A) and has clearly held that sub section (3) refers only to an […]
Principal CCIT Vs Nalini Chidambaram (Supreme Court of India) Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for interim stay of the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the said judgment may be acted upon in other similar cases. While, we decline the prayer for stay, as the same would amount to grant of […]
Sh. Gurdev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) Smt. Harsharan Kaur was 73 years old lady at the relevant time. Therefore, she gave Power of Attorney to the assessee since she could not maintain the property. It was further submitted that within one year from the date of general Power of Attorney, the assessee gave the […]
