M/s Trident Limited vs. The Addl. CIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Assessee company made an investment of Rs. 5038.88 lacs and Rs. 4575.77 Lacs as on 31.03.2006 & 31.03.2007 in various tax free equity funds, from which assessee company gain an dividend of Rs. 46,91,849/-.
The Delhi High Court in case of Teletube Electronics Ltd Vs CIT held that there has to be an extinguishment of ownership rights in order that a Lease transaction can be said to be a ‘sale’. The leasehold right is only for a period of ten years and at the end of that period the leased facilities revert to the owner.
In case of Ram Piyari Devi Charitable Trust Vs. Director General Of Income Tax, Delhi High Court held that in order to claim exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) , there should be existence of educational institution and approval of prescribed authority.
The Delhi High Court has held in case of Stitchwell Qualitex (RF) Vs. ITO that Installation of plant and machinery in building would amount to use of the building and therefore assessee is eligible to claim for depreciation u/s 32 on said building .
HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Also the judgment of Biocon Ltd vs. Dy. CIT [2013] 25 ITR (Trib) 602 (Bang) (SB) in which it was held that discount on the issue of shares to employee under the ESOP is an allowed expenditure u/s 37 is binding on us.
Supreme Court in the case of M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited v CCE held that the particular product which has been manufactured by the assessee for captive consumption will only be considered for any kind of exemption if covered by any exemption notification.
In case of CCE v M/s Fitrite Packers, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the product could be termed as ‘Manufactured’ only when there is a transformation in the original article and this transformation should bring out a distinctive or different use in the article.
In case of M/s Star Industries v Commissioner of Customs (Import), Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Notification No.4/2006-CE held that it is an exemption notification where only ‘Ores’ were exempted and if after the process of manufacture
In case of Oriental Insurance Company vs. CIT, Delhi High Court held that AO could not assume jurisdiction to reopen assessment u/s 147, until his reasons of belief have a ‘direct nexus’ and a ‘live link’ with the opinion formed by him, that Taxable Income of Assessee has escaped assessment.
In case of CIT Vs. Chetan Gupta, Delhi High Court held that where objection to effect, that notice for reassessment was not served on his last known address of assessee, was taken prior to completion of reassessment
