Judgment in case of Amrit Banaspati Company Ltd.- The Hon’ble High Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of the amended Section 29(4) in entirety and dismissed the writ petitions. The basic grievances of the petitioners were that the Amendment of Section 29(4) was prospective and not retrospective.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. M/s Mobisoft Tele Solutions Pvt. Ltd. that Tarun Mohan had obtained the copyright in respect of the artistic work comprised in the name phoneytunes.com. Registration of the copyright is, however, not compulsory.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of M/s Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Inds. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) has held that this position in law is well-settled. After 1st April, 1989
The charges such as Landing Charges, Lighting Charges, Approach and Aerodrome Control Charges, Aircraft Parking Charges, Aerobridge Charges, Hangar Charges, Passenger Service Charges, Cargo Charges etc.
CIT vs. Sarkar Builders (Supreme Court of India)- Restriction on extent of commercial area in ‘housing project’ imposed w.e.f. 1.4.2005 does not apply to housing projects approved before 1.4.2005 even though completed after 1.4.2005 – Section 80-IB(10).
The appellant-assessee is engaged in the business of export of marine products and also financial consultancy and trading in equity shares. Its total business does not consist purely of exports but includes business within the country as well which situation is covered by Section 80HHC (3)(b).
The assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacture of pre-engineered building system products. During relevant year, assessee entered into international transactions with its AE situated in Kuwait.
CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 on subject of monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable on pending cases also- ACIT Vs. Suncity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT DELHI)
In the case of Shri Barjinder Singh Bhatti vs. ITO ITAT has held that in absence of not having any evidence or material before him to contradict the report of the Registered Valuer, AO cannot reject valuation report of Registered Valuer.
No effort or any arguments have been advanced by the Revenue to justify that the expenses were unreasonable and excessive. In the absence of any justification for making a 5% disallowance of the total expenses for royalty
