for the purpose of classification of fertilisers, it is important to see where the products consists of nitrogen phosphorous and potassium as laid down in the explanatory notes, it should be classified as fertilizers.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs. DCIT held that it is only the AO who has issued the original assessment order under Section 143 (3) ,who is empowered to exercise powers under Section 147/148 to re-open the assessment.
Supreme Court held In the case of M/s Ganapathy & Co. vs. CIT that in the current case, each relevant fact considered by the High Court to answer the questions referred to it on the claim(s) of deduction raised by the assessee are acknowledged, admitted and undisputed facts.
Delhi High Court held In the case of YUM Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that both entities i.e Yum Asia and Yum Singapore which hold the shares of assessee, Yum India, for pre and post restructuring period respectively, were distinct entities.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal that as per section 50B, the value of the net worth must be computed by decreasing from the actual cost of asset falling within the block, the depreciation actually allowed in respect of previous years relevant to the assessment year commencing before 1st day of April, 1988
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Raj Kumar Mangla vs. ACIT(Inv Circle), Gurgaon held that when a clear order transferring the jurisdiction is passed by a competent authority in law the AO from whose jurisdiction transfer was ordered can no longer assume his jurisdiction over the assessee.
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Goldfilled Mercantile Company vs. DCIT held that when the assessee shown lesser capital gain in its return of income under a bonafide belief of a deduction from it but paid due taxes then the assessee cannot be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) as there was no intention
Karnataka High Court held In the case of M/s. Safina Hotels Private Limited vs. CIT & DCIT that it is clear that the notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c), which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274.
The notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act.
In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi Vs M/S Bajaj Motors, it was held that the outdoor catering service provided has not been used for the personal use or consumption of the employee and the said service has been provided by the employer to its employees for preserving proper working atmosphere in the factory for enhancing the productivity.
