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 Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune V/s. Hindustan National Glass and Industries Limited, it was held that the onus is on the revenue to establish that there has been depression of assessable value and that being the thrust of the matter, liberty is granted to the revenue to produce the documents in this regard to discharge the onus.
ITO Vs. M/s. Vokkaligara Sangha (ITAT Bangalore) It was held by ITAT that voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose cannot be regarded as income under Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act since they are capital receipts and tied up grants for specific purpose.
One precedence is there whereby a person aggrieved by the disposal of application for stay of demand can approach ITAT instead of writ to HC. Delhi ITAT has, in the case of Employees’ Provident Fund Vs. Addl. CIT (T.D.S) dated 10.04.2015 has admitted the appeal and has granted a stay on such demand when quantum appeal is not pending before it.
Delhi High Court held in case of Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO upheld the order of Delhi ITAT and held that under Section 79 of the Act the set off and carry forward of loss, which is otherwise available under the provisions of Chapter VI,
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of The United Planters Association of Southern India Vs. Union of India, Stayed the Operation and Implementation of Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the extent the same gives retrospective from 01.04.2014
ITAT Delhi held in case of DCIT v Hitz FM Radio India Ltd. that expenditure related to licence fee and royalty which helps merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management to be carried more effectively is revenue in nature even if advantage may endure for an indefinite future.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Vipul-S Plasticrafts P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise held that when the rule under which duty is sought to be demanded itself has been struck down as unconstitutional by various High Courts, the show-cause notice which are based upon rule 8(3A) cannot survive and are liable to be set aside.
