Bombay High Court held that as per agreement, the deferred consideration is payable over a period of four years and the formula prescribed in the agreement itself makes it clear that the deferred consideration to be received by the assessee in the four years would be dependent upon the profits made by M/s. Unisol in each of the years.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Repute Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the present case, the order of AO may be brief but that by itself is not a sufficient reason to hold the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
It is held that Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.
The Hon’ble Madras High court in the above cited case held that in deciding the application for condonation of delay in filling return of income the approach of the CBDT should be justice oriented so as to advance the cause of justice.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of ADIT vs. Sh. Dhan Singh Sharma that clause 244A (1) (b) is residual in nature which prescribes interest on refund from the date of payment of tax in cases which are not covered by Section 244A (1) (a). Necessarily, it will cover interest on refund of excess self-assessment tax paid by the assessee.
CESTAT held that tobacco manufactured and packed in small pouches of 6-7 grams and again packed in a bigger packet are not subject to valuation based on retail price as the small pouches weighing less than 10 gms are exempt from requirement of fixation of retail sale price under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weight & Measurement Act.
CENVAT Credit on Canteen Services and House Keeping/Cleaning Services availed in office building are admissible to Assessee when same was situated within licensed factory premises of Assessee.
The appellant has contended that the primary adjudication order claimed have to be sent by speed post was not received by it and when it received copy thereof, it filed the appeal within the prescribed period.
The petitioner would assail the legality and validity of the order passed by the SP, Rajnandgaon on 11.3.2003 dismissing him from service; the appellate order dated 9.6.2003 passed by the IG, Police, Raipur Range and the order dismissing his mercy petition by the DGP, PHQ, Raipur in October, 2003 whereby his appeal and mercy petition were dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT that the assessee claiming that he has no bank account or based on transfer instructions, no transfer of funds had, however, been effected, would be of little moment in-as-much as the addition is toward unexplained money or bank deposit.
