Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

December 2017

Andhara Pradesh & Telangana H.C : the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in sustaining the order of the CIT (Appeals) who confirmed the order of the assessing authority treating the entire share capital of the assessee/appellant as its income without conducting any enquiry in that regard

Avijit Das / December 20, 2017

High Court Of Andhara Pradesh & Telangana Sriman Sai Securities Investment Finance Limited vs. DCIT Section 68 C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy […]

Section 54F, Sec. 260A, Sec. 271(1)(c )

Allahabad H.C : Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)

Avijit Das / December 19, 2017

High Court Of Allahabad Pr.CIT vs. Prakash Chandra Sharma Section 54F, 260-A, 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 2012-13 Bharati Sapru & Saumitra

Sec. 32(1)(iia), Section 32

Kerala H.C : There is no “manufacture” in the production of Ready Mix Concrete when the RMC itself is an excisable commodity/goods on which credit is also available for inputs

Avijit Das / December 19, 2017

High Court Of Kerala Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Union Of India Section 32(1)(iia) Asst. Year 2006-07 K.Vinod

AAR-New Delhi : Where applicant an Indian company entered into two agreements with a French company for offshore equipment supply and for supervision of installation services, no income from offshore supply of equipment would be taxable in India as business connection through supervision on Indian premises later had no connection with this supply

Avijit Das / December 19, 2017

Authority For Advance Rulings, New Delhi Michelin Tamil Nadu Tyres (P.) Ltd., In re Section 9 R.S. Shukla, (In-Charge), Chairman

Section 69A, Sec. 142(1), Sec. 143(2), Section 143

Patna H.C : The appellant’s case confirmation of addition u/s 69A amounting to Rs.1,04,71,720 is legal and valid

Avijit Das / December 18, 2017

High Court Of Patna D. N. Singh vs. CIT Section 69A, 142(1), 143(2) Asst. Year 1995-96 Dr. Ravi Ranjan &

GST Caselaws, Section 95

Madras H.C : Hank Yarn Packing Notification issued by Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, is to protect handloom weavers, and under said statutory Notification, term ‘Yarn’ has been defined only as cotton yarn and it does not include all type of yarns

Avijit Das / December 13, 2017

High Court Of Madras Aakavi Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. vs. Authority for Clarification & Advance Ruling Section 95 T. S.

Section 132, Sec. 37(1)

Kerala H.C : Where assessee a real estate developer claimed expenditure incurred for making land suitable for sale and expenditure was supported by documents seized at time of search, benefit of presumption under section 132(4A) would be available to assessee and there would be no need for further proof under section 37, since Assessing Officer did not endeavour to carry out investigation into genuineness of expenditure made

Avijit Das / December 12, 2017

High Court Of Kerala CIT, (Central) Kochi Vs. Damac Holdings (P.) Ltd. Section 132, 37(1) Assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09

CESTAT-Bangalore Bench : FRP Composite Doors and Frames made from solid block of sale wood on which skin of fibre reinforced material was glued are classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 4410 19 as articles of wood (door) as well as under Tariff Heading No. 4410 90 as wooden frames

Avijit Das / December 11, 2017

CESTAT, Bangalore Bench Fimen Fibre Products (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,Customs & Service Tax S.S. Garg, Judicial Member

GST Caselaws, Section 73

S.C : Where a part demand in show cause notice was not maintainable while other demands were maintainable, in view of expiry of limitation period in issuing fresh notice, impugned show cause notice was not to be set aside in its entirety

Avijit Das / December 11, 2017

Supreme Court Of India Union of India vs. Naval Group Insurance Fund Section 73 Ranjan Gogoi And R. Banumathi, JJ.

Sec. 115JB, Section 147

Delhi H.C : Even where there were scrutiny assessments, reassessment would be permissible if in succeeding year, Assessing Officer noticed that though there was merger/amalgamation, assessee had, in computing depreciation on goodwill, instead of adopting ‘pooling of assets’ method, adopted a wrong method of ‘purchase’

Avijit Das / December 8, 2017

High Court Of Delhi SC Johnson Products (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi Section 115JB, 147 Assessment years 2007-08

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 4 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top