Madras High Court held in CIT Vs M/s MIL Industries Ltd that the vacant land left on constructed property as per the construction plan of that property would not be treated as a vacant urban land because the vacant land left was the requirement of the construction plan
Madras High Court in CIT Vs K Rajinikanth (Madras High Court) held that for computing the income for calculating the deduction u/s 80IA, only the profits & Losses of the eligible business had to be taken into consideration as if it was the only business of the assessee.
Madras High Court held in CIT Vs M/s Schwing Stetter India P Ltd that the case only be opened for re-assessment u/s 147 only if there was a tangible material in the hand of AO , it could not be opened just because of the change in the opinion of AO.
Madras High court in CIT Vs M/s Sea Rose Marines Pvt Ltd (Madras High Court) held that if the notice was not issued to the assessee properly then the ITAT had the right to review its own order. The ITAT had recalled the order and gave new decision after reviewing
Madras High Court held in CIT V/s Ms Orient Express that the amendment to sec 80HHC would have prospective effect from 2005 not retrospective effect.
Madras High Court held in CIT Vs Ms Vidya Thangakumar that it would vary from case to case that whether the land in the hand of assessee is a capital asset or business stock. In the present case the assessee had got the land under settlement and it had to sell the land
The assessee is engaged in manufacture of plastic articles/components and parts by using injection moulding machines. In the present matter the moulds, used to manufacture, in this case cabinets for television sets the finished product
The Hon’ble Court is of the view that the present appeal does not involve an issue regarding the rate of duty in as much as even the assessee does not dispute the rate of duty i.e. payable for the services rendered.
The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts and components. The assessee cleared waste and scrap and replacement of defective products without payment of duty. The period in question pertains to September, 1998.
The facts of the case are that assessee is a manufacturer of chocolates and coco products. During the course of the manufacturing final product certain floor spillage and sweeping arises which assessee is destroying.
