In the case of CIT vs Anshikha Consultants Pvt Ltd, Delhi High Court held that whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance.
Assessee claimed deductions on account of excise duty paid and interest thereon which was originally allowed by AO but subsequently rectified u/s 154 by making addition of the same. ITAT examined the facts
In this case assessee with an intention to shift its industrial undertaking from urban to non-urban area sold its land, plant & machinery, building etc. and out of capital gain earned he made advance payments to various persons to purchase land, plant & machinery, building etc.
In this case AO made certain addition being disagreed from the submissions of the assessee. Being aggrieved from the assessment order assessee filed appeal before CIT (A). After considering submissions of the assessee and noticing that the provisions of Section 14A has to be invoked
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. held that the power given to custom authorities u/s 18 of Customs Act,1962 can be exercised only when the proper officer deem it necessary to subject the goods to further tests.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Secure Meters held that parts and accessories which are goods included in the heading of the Chapter 90, are to be classified in their respective headings. The end of such goods is not determinative of its classification.
M/s. ITC Limited Vs. CESTAT, Bangalore (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Larger Bench of Supreme Court had categorically held that any duty paid under mistake of law can be recovered only by resort to the provisions of Section 11B of the Act.
In the present case services were provided by the non-resident individuals so article 15 was applicable but the pre-requisite condition that the each non-resident individual had to be present in India for more than 90 days which was not ascertained.
Delhi High Court has in the case of CIT Vs M/s Bharat Hotels held that If appellant Leasee is having entire control over the building than even though no ownership rights vest him, still he can claim depreciation on the same.
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of Perfect Paradise Emporium Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO that If creditors are found bogus then the amount can be added back to income u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits or us 41(1) as business income.
