ITAT Ahmedabad has held in the case ITO v Someshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. that the TDS would be deducted u/s 194C only when the amount of single contract exceeds Rs. 20,000 or the amount exceeds Rs. 50,000 in aggregate which has been given to a particular person in a year.
In the case of Flevel International V/S Commissioner Of Central Excise, it was held by Delhi High Court that the denial of an opportunity of cross-examination of a witness whose statements have been relied upon in the adjudication order would vitiate the order of adjudication. In the present case
In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Seiko Brushware India , it was held by Supreme Court that benefit of exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus. Dated 13.06.1998 for NIL SAD is not granted in respect of such goods which the importer sells post importation from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale of goods.
In the case of M/s. Rupa & Co. Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that what is contained in finished product is only a quantity of all the inputs of the same weight as that of the finished product
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s Indo Soviet Friendship that the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record as to how he has given his finding that the cars have been purchased for the benefit of the Chairman.
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of ITO, TDS vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd that services rendered does not qualify as FTS for technical services under the India Finland Tax Treaty if service provider has not made available to assessee any technical knowledge skill
The Delhi High Court Has Held In the case of Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax that both the assessee as well as the department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal.
In the case of Ms. Chaurasia & Sons. Vs. I.T.O the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that mere confirmation of addition will not lead to conclusion that penalty is leviable, unless it is established that assessee has concealed its income.
In the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Others , Bombay High Court inter-alia held that the assessee herein being a Cooperative Bank also governed by the Reserve Bank of India and thus the directions with regard to the prudential norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India
In the case of CIT vs. Suman Dhamija, the Supreme Court held that CBDT Instruction specifying monetary limits for filing appeals applicable only to appeals filed after that date and not to pending appeals.
