Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of HCL Limited v Commissioner of Customs that Risograph is a printing machine and not a duplicating machine.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of M/s Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. held that the passing of recovery order without issuance of show cause notice is against the principles of law and thus, the proceedings initiated has no validity.
In the case Vinod Kumar Surana Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the fact of withdrawal of deduction u/ 80IB of the Act in the subsequent years when the same were duly granted by the ld. AO in the initial assessment years per se becomes a debatable issue and hence same cannot be dealt in the proceedings u/s 154
In the case of Neeraj Murarka Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the fact of cash withdrawals made by assessee, cash balance held by assessee has never been questioned and nor any fact to the contrary has been brought on record.
Whether the CESTAT is empowered to grant or extend Stay of recovery of demand beyond 365 days from the date when the Stay Order was initially passed, notwithstanding that the delay in disposal of the appeal was not attributable to an assessee?
In the case of Bhagat Construction Co Private Limited vs CIT Hon;ble Supreme Court has held that Interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961 is automatic even if assessment order does not contain any direction for payment subject to computation of same in Form I.T.N.S 150
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs The Executive Engineer Court of Karnataka( Kalaburagi Bench) has held that if a person executing the work, purchases the materials from a person other than the customer
Delhi High Court has held in the case of DIT vs. M/s Lufthansa Cargo India that Retrospective amendments seeking to tax income of non-residents does not affect the source rule’. The amendment makes no any difference to the non-taxability of payments made to foreign companies if the income accrues abroad – Section 9.
B Bala Narasimha Reddy Vs PR.CIT (AP High Court)- In the present case impugned order is bereft of any reasons and further the same has not dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his application filed under Section 220(2A) of the Act
Punjab & Haryana High Court held in Manpreet Kaur vs CIT that if the assesse had claimed exemption u/s 54 for utilizing the sales proceeds in the construction of the residential house then the onus to prove that the sales proceeds had actually been used in the construction of residential house in on assesse.
