In the case of Smt. Shreelekha Damani, vs. The DCIT (OSD-1)CR-7 ITAT has held that In our considered opinion, the power vested in the Joint Commissioner/Addl Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty.
Bombay High court held In the case of M/s Vijay Udhyog vs. CIT that where two opinion or views are available and one of the view is taken by the AO, cannot be a basis for revision of order u/s 263. Also none of the clauses of section 80I(2)(i) to (iv) prohibit the assessee from taking other industrial undertakings on hire and use it for the purpose of manufacturing activity.
In the case of ACIT Vs Shri Kamlakar Moghe it was held by Nagpur Bench of Bombay HC that deduction u/s 54EC can be claimed by the assessee despite making the investment in REC bonds beyond six months if the delay was due to non-availability of the REC Bonds.
Victory Aqua Farm Ltd vs ACIT (Supreme Court) The assessee has claimed depreciation in respect of these ponds by contending that these prawn ponds are tools to its business and therefore constitute ‘plant’ within the meaning of Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vikrant Dutt Chaudhary Vs. CIT held that photocopy of a document will always constitute relevant “material” for the purpose of assessment because the very use of word material in sec 143(3) clearly shows that the AO is not bound by the technical rules of evidence
In the case of Avinash Gupta and Ors V/s Union of India and Ors It was held by Delhi High Court that in this case it is pleaded that the petition is in the nature of public interest. However, the petition is not drafted as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
In this case of United Shippers Ltd. Vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) reopening u/s 148 was challenged by way of writ on the ground that assessment was reopened after the expiry of four years and reason recorded did not indicate any material which the petitioner has not fully and truly disclosed in the assessment proceedings.
In the case of ITO vs. M/s Besto Tradelink (P) Ltd ITAT Ahemdabad) – Assessing Officer has computed the other disallowances of interest amount and the one under section 40A(3) only on the basis of assessee’s accurate particulars already submitted on record in the course of scrutiny.
In the case of, M/s. Aidees Electronics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CCE it was held by Madras High Court that if the original authority had invoked the enhanced period of limitation on only one particular ground viz., suppression of fact and the appellate authority had set aside that finding
It was held in the case of CIT v/s South India Corporation Ltd. by Kerla High Court That the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction of the belated payments to the Provident Fund in view of the section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the Income tax Act.
