In the course of his duties, the Director of inspection has ample opportunities to follow the course of investigation and assessment carried on by the income Tax Officers and to check the information received from his sources with the actual material produced or not produced before the assessing authorities.
In the case of M/s. Nepa Agency Co. Pvt. Ltd & Anr v Union of India, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that whenever in a statute a remedy is provided or an alternative remedy is there, then there is no need to entertain the Writ Petitions.
Calcutta High Court Held in the case of M/s Budge Budge Company Ltd Vs CIT if the business had been suspended for some period of time without any malice contention of the assesse and the plant was still ready for use during that suspended period also
ITAT held in CIT( Kolkatta) Vs Merlin Holding Private Limited that it was the question of the fact to decide between the share income as an investment income or as a business income. Mere Frequency of the transactions in the shares did not determine the transaction to be business transaction or investment transaction.
Since basis for visiting assessee with penalty has been extinguished by quashing assessment order itself by Tribunal in appeal of assessee, impugned penalty imposed further had no leg to stand.
Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Ltd., a non resident company Mauritian entity. Vodafone Holding is AE (Associate Enterprise) of Vodafone India for the purpose of transfer pricing provisions under chapter X of Income Tax Act 1961. Vodafone india is engaged in providing service in relation to Telecommunication in india.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Golden Corporation Services that it appears from the grounds of the appeal that appellant did not pursue the matter seriously. There is no allegation or any proof of the fact that the appellant was prevented by any cause far less sufficient
In the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. vs. CIT, High Court has held that that independent income having no nexus with exports would be covered by the words other similar receipts in clause (baa) of the Explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act.
In view of the categorical finding of the Hon’ble Suprreme Court that the goodwill also falls under the expression ‘any other business or commercial right of a similar nature’and thus would be an asset under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Act, we accordingly hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation on goodwill.
There is nothing in Section 80I(2)(iv) to say that the relationship in order to qualify for the term employment must be one of master and servant and cannot extend to contractual employment. That the concept of permanent or direct workmen is the precondition envisioned in Section 80I(2) when it was the term employs does not appear to be reflected in the statute.
