Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Kamarhatty Company Ltd. that the views expressed by the tribunal are as per law. Assessee has made the gratuity provision in respect of employees who have already retired.
The petitioner has filed an appeal being ITA No.825/Del/2014 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 31.10.2013. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, that is, on 31.03.2014, had granted stay of the demand which had been raised subsequent to the said order
In the case of Srikant Bagla Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors., it was held that an assessee cannot be benefitted when it is proved that the assessee had a substantial contribution to make towards the delay in the legal proceedings.
The appellant availed CENVAT credit on input and capital goods. On a visit of the Central Excise officers, Preventive Unit, Thane – I on 20/02/2007, on their insurance, the appellant have reversed CENVAT credit of Rs.1, 70,737/- on 12/03/2007.
Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. ACIT In this case the writ petition was filed by the Assessee in which the AP High Court while dismissing the writ petition held that whenever an order is made under the re-assessment
Hon’ble ITAT Ahemdabad in the case of Nikunjkumar H.Jariwala v/s ITO in I.T.A. No. 2404/Ahd/2011 vide order dated 19/03/2015 has held that as per the mandate provisions of section 50C(2) of the Act, the AO was not justified in adopting the value of the property as adopted by the stamp valuation authority without referring to the DVO for ascertaining the fair market value of the property.
For the assessment year 2008-09 the assessee had reported a tax exempt income to the tune of Rs. 18,26,360/- amongst other heads of income. The AO added back Rs. 19,96,242/- under Section 14A. While doing so, the AO applied Rule 8D by taking into consideration the total quantum of interest other than that invested
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of ACIT V/s M/s Responsible Builders Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 2726/Del /2011 has held that it is trite law that in order to determine whether there are reasons to believe that the income got escaped the assessment, one has to look at the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the case of CCE Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd held that reinsurance service is an input service for rendering insurance service because the reinsurance is an integral part of insurance service rendered by the insurance co. and cannot be termed as an activity post completion of insurance services.
In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V. S. Dempo & Company Ltd, Goa High Court has held that the principal amount of loan taken for purchase of capital assets was on capital account and therefore on cessation of its repayment there is no occasion to apply Section 41 (1) of the Act. And resultant income should only be treated as capital receipt.
