The CESTAT Chennai in the case of Ansaldo STS Transportation Systems India Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai held that if the importer had entered into transaction with related persons and failed to prove that the price had not been influenced by the relationship
It was held by Kerala High Court in the case of Classic Concepts Home India Private Limited V/s. CIT that, penalty U/s 271C is exigible if delay in remittance of TDS is caused due to unreasonable cause.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of Duncan International Ltd. vs. CIT that Section 36 (2) (iii) allowed the assessee to claim the deduction on account of bad debts in subsequent years even if bad debts have written off in earlier years and which were not allowed.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Mahesh Chandra Mantri that It is apparent from the language of the Section 2(22) (e) that before any payment can take the character of dividend within the meaning of the aforesaid provision it has to be shown that there were accumulated profits lying
In the case of M/s Bhagwati Motors Vs. ITO Chandigarh bench of ITAT have held that Assessee merely acted as a conduit without any right in money, therefore, no addition under section 69A of the Act could be made against the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held in case of ACIT Vs. Smt. Ranjana Johari that if change made in the wooden article which resulted in to a new and different article then it would amount to manufacturing activity. The assessee, Ranjana Johari, had undertaken different activities to shape up
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of The ACIT vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. that rejection of books of accounts should not be in a mechanical manner. The AO has to come to a definite conclusion that the accounts are not correct or not complete; consequently, it has distorted the true picture of profit.
Supreme Court of India while interpreting Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which is for rebate of excise duty, has held in the case of Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise that Rebate of Duty is Admissible Both on Inputs i.e raw materials and Final Goods.
a. Assessee had filed return of income on 27-10-2006 u/s 139(1) and original assessment was done by AO u/s 143(3) vide order dated 15.12.2008. b. Subsequently, this case was reopened u/s 147 and AO framed re-assessment order dated 31.12.2012 u/s 143 read with 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
In the case of ITO Vs Bimal Biswas, ITAT of Kolkata set aside the issue to the file of AO and directed the assessee to produce the relevant evidence in respect payees of carriage charges whether they have included the carriage receipts in the respective returns of income and paid taxes on the said income
