High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Ms Megha Dadoo that the product (Route Marker) produced by the assessee was commercially different from its raw material and also a commercially different product known in the market.
In absence of any finding recorded in the assessment order or in the penalty order to the effect that repayment of loans/ deposit was not under a bonafide transaction and was made with a view to evade tax, the cause shown by the assessee was a reasonable cause and in the view of section 273B no penalty could be imposed.
The ITAT considered the submissions and concluded that the AO could not have brought to tax the amounts that he ultimately did merely based upon the DVO’s report in the absence of any material pointing to under valuation.
Sri Damodarlal Badruka Vs. ITO (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is well settled that once an assessment is re-opened by virtue of the order passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act, the initial order of assessment ceases to be operative.
The pre-payment discount given by the taxpayer cannot be equated to quantity discount since quantity discount is reduction in sale price. The pre-payment discount was effectively in the nature of interest because it was in consideration of the taxpayer receiving advance payment and to compensate the buyer for making the payment in advance before the sale of goods.
The writ petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution ofIndia, is a company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius, challenges aruling dated 21.03.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned ruling’) ofthe Authority for Advance Ruling, (herein after referred to as ‘AAR’) in A.A.R.
The ITAT Panaji in the case of ACIT Vs. Karishma Global Mineral Pvt. Ltd. held that the sales commission paid by assessee to Singapore based entity is not taxable in India as the same is business profits which cannot be taxed in the hands of foreign company under India
We are in disagreement with the revenue’s argument that GMDAT should not be selected as a ‘tested party’ as the comparable as the comparable companies selected by the assessee doesn’t fall within the ambit of TPO’s jurisdiction and, thus, he can neither call for any additional information nor scrutinize their books of accounts.
In the case of M/s.Novel Digital Electronics Vs The Commissioner Customs (Imports), it was held by Madras High Court that penalty will ordinarily be imposed in cases where the party acts deliberately in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct
Navayuga Quazigund Expressway (P)Limited V/s. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad), It was contended on behalf of the assessee that interest under S.201(1A) was computed by the assessing officer by considering part of the calendar month as full month
