Delhi High Court held In the case of Principle CIT vs. Matchless Glass Services Pvt. Ltd. that the fact that a common address is shared by several companies may not be a sole ground to doubt the identity or the creditworthiness of the companies
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Abhinandan Investment Ltd. that there is no necessity or occasion for trader to separately determine the cost of acquisition of each item of goods sold by him; he is only required to prepare a trading account while reflecting the aggregate sales and purchases.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Bausch & Lomb Eye care (India) Pvt. Ltd. that in the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position clears.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principle CIT vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. that the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gopi Apartments: (2014) 365 ITR 411 (All.) has held that even in cases where the assessing officer of the person searched and the assessee who is sought to be assessed under Section 153C is the same
In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that as there is no change in the facts for the instant assessment year, the AO/DRP is directed to include EDCIL (the company excluded by TPO) in the final set of comparable companies.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of CCEx vs. M/s Wartsila (I) Pvt. Ltd. held that exemption under notification no. 25/2002-CE is available the goods supplied should be used in the construction of warship of Indian Navy and in respect of such goods a certificate is produced from Indian Navy.
In the case of M/s DDRC SRL Diagnostic P Ltd. Vs. ITO Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that If the hospitals/laboratories act as mere link between the assessee and patients, then the discount given by the assessee would definitely fall under the category of Commission liable for deduction u/s 194H of the Act.
In the case of M/s Chhaganlal Khimji & Co. Vs. ACIT Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A when there is no exempt income. ITAT relied upon the judgments of various courts in coming to the conclusion.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd. that the legal requirement that the reason to believe must be predicated on tangible material or information” and that the belief must be rational and bear a direct nexus to the material on which such a belief is based” was not fulfilled in the present case.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Shri Parasram Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the present case is related to change of opinion. This is so, because in the questionnaire, the AO specifically raised the issue with regard to the validity of shareholdings.
