The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham & others held that the estate of a dead person cannot be attached for recovery of excise duty payable because there is no enabling provision in the Act to do so.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s N.S. Rathnam& Sons held that when two methods are permissible under the statutory scheme itself to discharge duty liability then merely because with the adoption of one particular method the duty that becomes payable is lesser
ITAT Mumbai held in case of ACIT vs. Suryashankar Properties Limited that Intention of letting out the property is to be seen for invoking clause (c) of section 23(1) for computing the annual letting value of the property and it is irrelevant whether the property is/was let out.
In the case M/s. Ashok Trading Co. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that as per sub-section (2) of 115WD, if the assessee had not filed the return of Fringe Benefit but in the opinion of the AO he should have filed the return
In the case of Pankaj Plastic Industries Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that The materials found in the course of survey would not be the basis for making any addition in the assessment. The word “may” used in section 133A (3)(iii) of the Act makes it clear that the materials collected
High Court of Bombay at Goa held in the case of CIT vs. V. S. Dempo & Company Ltd. Held that view taken by the Assessing Officer or by the Commissioner has to be on the basis of the law prevailing on the day the view was taken.
In the case of The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd vs. ACIT High Court of Bombay at Goa held that All three conditions of 5(1)(ccv) are to be satisfied cumulatively by a society for being termed as co-operative bank.
High Court of Bombay at Goa has held in the case of Vassantram Mehta & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT that Interest not to be disallowed if interest free advance granted to sister concern due to commercial expediency and is for business purpose of assessee.
High Court of Bombay at Goa has held in the case of In the case of M/s Mavany Brothers vs. CIT that that it is settled position that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and cannot be conferred by consent of petitioner.
ITAT Delhi held in the case American Express (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT that even though the assessee in its TP study has included the turnover filter of less than Rs.1 crore, the assessee has given reasons for inclusion of these two companies in the list of comparables
