HIGH COURT RULING Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs CIT (D ated...

HIGH COURT RULING

2016-TIOL-2135-HC-MUM-IT

Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: September 8, 2016)

Whether expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the issue of sharecapital with a dominant objective to dilute its foreign shareholding under Governmentdirective to enable it to carry on business in India, is in the nature of capitalexpenditure - YES: HC

Whether if the share application money has been kept in the separate account asstatutorily required till allotment of shares, interest earned on the deposit of shareapplication money is directly linked with the issue, hence it cannot be brought to tax asincome but has to be taken into account to reduce the expenditure incurred on issue ofshares - YES: HC

Whether the interest income earned by an assessee on investment of share investor'smoney is to be classified under 'income from other sources' - YES: HC

Also see analysis of the order

2016-TIOL-2134-HC-MAD-IT

CIT Vs Sangu Chakra Hotels Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 23, 2016)

Whether when the assessee has taken over possession of the wind mill before the endof relevant financial year and the same was put to use generating electricity before the31 st March, depreciation can still be denied in the relevant financial year - NO: HC

Whether when all the materials were available before the appellate authority and notobjected by the revenue, the contention that a report ought to have been obtained,can be countenanced as exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate authority, cannot besaid to be contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Rules - NO: HC

Whether even when a PSU has issued documentary proof for disbursement of the loan,a state controlled entity has issued documents to prove the purchase of powergenerated by the windmill from the assessee, they were not objected by the RevenueDepartment, in such a case would it be appropriate to hold against the assessee - NO:HC



CIT Vs Salem Agricultural Producers Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd(Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether interest and dividend income earned by a society from the investment madein another society is eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act - YES : HC


CIT Vs Veerakeralam Primary Agricultural (Dated: July 5, 2016)

Whether deduction u/s 80P(2) can be denied if primary object of the society is toprovide financial accommodation to its members to meet all the agriculturalrequirements and to provide credit facilities to the members - NO: HC


Shilpa Granites Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether an assessment u/s 158BC can be made in respect of materials not foundduring the course of search u/s 132 - No: HC

Whether reassessment proceedings u/s 147 could be carried out in respect of materialswhich could not be subject to block assessment - Yes: HC

2016-TIOL-2130-HC-DEL-IT

PR CIT Vs Softline Creations Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 31, 2016)

Whether addition u/s 68 for share application money raised can be made just becausethe directors of the Company has not been physically produced before the Revenuethough the identity, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of shareapplicants, is proved through the bank statments, PAN and affidavits of the directors -NO : HC

2016-TIOL-2129-HC-P&H-IT

CIT Vs Sunil Sachdeva (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Whether in case separate instructions were not given to bank on the next day, either inwriting or orally, to transfer the amount to the Special Capital Gain Account, theamount would be considered as deposited on the previous day itself - YES: HC

Whether the amount lent by the employer company to its employee can be consideredas an investment by such company in the residential house which would dis entitlesuch assessee to claim exemption u/s 54F - NO: HC

2016-TIOL-2128-HC-AHM-IT

CIT Vs Suresh Zaveri Exports (Dated: July 29, 2016)

Whether ninety per cent of not the gross interest but only the net interest, which hasbeen included in the profits of the business of the assessee as computed under theheads 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' is to be deducted under clause (1)of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC for determining the profits of the business -YES: HC


Virendra R Gandhi Vs DCIT (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether the interest amount received by an assessee can be disallowed u/s 57(iii) bythe Tribunal, even when the interest for the same borrowing has been allowed in theimmediately preceding year - NO: HC

2016-TIOL-2126-HC-KERALA-IT

V M Mathai Vs PR CIT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether the contention of Commissioner that there is a threat by the assessee andwaiver of interest cannot be done by threat, can this reason alone would not justifydenial of the benefit of waiver or reduction of interest, the same has to be consideredin the light of the statutory provisions as enumerated in Section 220(2A) - YES: HC


CIT Vs St Francis Clay Decor Tiles (Dated: March 22, 2016)

Whether Tribunal's order holding that assessment u/s 153A is to be made only inrespect of the incriminating materials found or seized during search conducted u/s132, deserves to be remanded when it is evident that Tribunal proceeded purely on thebasis of decided case without appreciating the facts & circumstances of the presentcase - Yes: HC

2016-TIOL-2122-HC-MP-IT

Pr. CIT Vs Seema Suryavanshi (Dated : July 27, 2016)

Whether in case a matter is pending before SETCOM where the assessee can raise allgrounds, including the objection raised in the writ petition, it becomes the duty ofSETCOM to look into this aspect of the matter and proceed in accordance with law -YES: HC


Ashwin Bhagwandas Choksey Vs Appropriate Authorities (Dated : September1, 2016)

Whether if the relevant clause of lease deed, gave an option to the Collector to requirepayment of half unearned incremental charges in the event of any assignment ortransfer, the Collector can choose to raise such demand after the auction purchase waseffected as these charges were not known to the Department at the time the auctionsale - YES: HC


CIT Vs Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Ltd (Dated : July 13, 2016)

Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in excluding the excise duty at the time ofvaluation of the closing stock of finished goods at the end of the accounting period inview of the clarification issued by the Revenue Department - YES: HC


Geo Foundations & Structure Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated : August 8, 2016)

Whether court would convert the order of conditional stay of demand of appellateauthority into absolute stay of demand based on materials available when saidauthority has already gone through the evidences on record and has came toconclusion that the materials placed can be considered only during the hearing ofappeal - NO : HC

2016-TIOL-2115-HC-KOL-IT

CIT Vs Eureka Stock And Share Broking Services Ltd (Dated: August 30, 2016)

Whether when the AO concerned has doubts with regard to the facts based onmisrepresentation made by the assessee, it cannot be said that he subsequentlychanged his opinion when he issues notice seeking to disallow the loss earlier allowedexpressly to be set off against the income arising out of the brokerage of shares - YES:HC


Josh Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd Vs PR CIT (Dated: September 9, 2016)

Whether two notices issued under different provisions of the Act to the same assesseecan be dispatched under the same number - YES: HC

Whether objection raised by the assessee as regards the validity of a notice issued u/s

143(2) before filing of return, can similarly be taken to be an objection to any noticeissued after the filing of return - NO: HC


CIT Vs Isc Investments & Finance Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 08, 2016)

Whether assessee is entitled to claim expenses where even after transfer of itsbusiness, the assessee retained a portion of the employees and infrastructure and byutilizing the said employees and infrastructural facilities, the assessee carried out anew contract work and earned business income - YES: HC

2016-TIOL-2106-HC-ORISSA-IT

CIT Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission (Dated: August 31, 2016)

Whether if opportunity has been given to assessee to agitate about the matter relatingto true and full disclosure of the income by the opposite parties, there is no order ofthe SETCOM to find the settlement as void or finding any mistake to rectify theimpugned order, it can be held that the impugned order has reached its finality - YES:HC

Whether when the statutory authority has already been conferred with the power todeclare the settlement void, it has been clearly indicated in the order passed underSub-section 4, the plea of the order being void or misrepresented, being not agitatedbefore the appropriate authority, the same can be agitated before SETCOM - NO: HC

Whether when the order of SETCOM has become conclusive being not agitated beforethe same Commission and no other legal points are submitted, exercise of writjurisdiction in such a case is still available - NO: HC

Whether when the tax under Sub-section-6A of the Act has been paid by the assesseeas per the demand of the AO, the Commission has not found the order void obtainedby fraud or misrepresentation, it can be said that the Commission has lost its statutorypower to implement, vary, modify and rectify its own order - NO: HC



CIT Vs Sicom Ltd (Dated: September 6, 2016)

Whether the expenses incurred in relation to providing lighting and power installation,are in the nature of office expenses necessary for carrying the business of theAssessee, hence the same is allowable as normal business expense - YES: HC


PR CIT Vs Ravjibhai Nagjibhai Thesia (Dated: May 2, 2016)

Whether when a reference is made under section 50C to the Valuation Officer forvaluation of the capital asset, the AO is obliged to complete the assessment inconformity with the estimate made by the Valuation Officer pursuant to such referencemade by him - YES: HC


Sajani Jewels Vs DCIT (Dated: June 9, 2016)

Whether the provisions of Section 147 would be applicable in case of bogus purchasesmade for the purpose of deflating profits - No: HC


Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd Vs ADDL CIT (Dated: June 7, 2016)

Whether when assessee's main object is to construct dam, would the businesscommence only on completion of the entire project of construction and not on phasewise completion of different stages of construction - No: HC

Whether the expenditure of interest paid on borrowings raised by assessee for thepurpose of construction of Dam would be allowable deduction as the purpose ofexpenditure is manifest and there is a clear nexus between the expenditure and theearning of income - Yes: HC


Shree Mahuva Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated:April 5, 2016)

Whether when there is nothing stated in the order of assessment that there is anyfailure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, it is stillopen for the AO to exercise powers u/s 147 for reopening of assessment - NO: HC


CIT Vs Rajesh Trade Link Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 4, 2016)

Whether when the final fact finding authority has rightly come to the conclusion whichis just and proper in the facts of the case, it is still possible for the High Court tointervene on no valid basis - NO: HC


PR CIT Vs Salasar Stock Broking Ltd (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Whether Revenue has no jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act to reopen the concluded casewhen the search and seizure does not disclose any incriminating material - YES : HC


CIT Vs Narayani & Sons Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 28, 2016)

Whether the penalty is sustainable, when the notice issued u/s 271(D) is hit by the barof limitation - NO: HC


PR CIT Vs Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Whether a prayer for reconsideration of a case by the Revenue to adjudicate based onevidences that the amount is merely an adjustment or additional income, can berejected by the Tribunal without giving reasons - NO : HC

2016-TIOL-2092-HC-ALL-IT

Bharatiya Plastic Udyog Vs ITO (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Whether if the assessee concealed certain things, furnished wrong informations,

transaction were made in cash and AO found a justification for rejection of accountswhich has been upheld by Tribunal, the same can be further contended before HighCourt without any conclusive evidence - NO: HC


PR CIT Vs BBF Industries Ltd (Dated: September 6, 2016)

Whether in case there are interest-bearing funds and interest-free funds, it is a generalpresumption that an assessee would invest the amount yielding exempt income fromthe interest-free funds in the first instance - YES: HC


CIT Vs Babulal K Daga (Dated: July 19, 2016)

Whether it is only the profit element embedded in the business which can be taxed andnot the entire amount, even in case of unaccounted receipts of a businessman - YES:HC


Devrajbhai Laljibhai Prajapati Vs ACIT (Dated: July 21, 2016)

Whether a finding based on the statement of the assessee during survey operation iscorrect when the statement was retracted by the assessee immediately after it wasmade - NO: HC

Whether statement recorded in survey operations is a conclusive piece of evidence -NO: HC


Gajanan Gangadhar Sane Deceased Vs ITO (Dated: June 7, 2016)

Whether the foreign exchange gift received from abroad from an NRI, is incomechargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act - YES: HC


CIT Vs Jeevan Products (Dated: July 29, 2016)

Whether ninety percent of net interest or rent, which had been included in the profitsof business of the assessee as computed under the head "Profits and gains of businessor profession", is to be deducted under clause (1) of Explanation (baa) to Section80HHC for determining the profits of the business - YES: HC


Jivraj Tea Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: July 19, 2016)

Whether reopening of assessment shall be deemed to be valid if the notice forreopening was issued beyond a period of 4 years from the end of relevant AY - NO: HC

Whether reopening of assessment is valid when the requirement of income havingescaped assessment due to assessee's failure to disclose truly and fully all materialfacts is not satisfied - No: HC


Asharam Ashram Vs ITO (Dated: July 20, 2016)

Whether validity of notice for reopening an assessment must be judged on the basis ofreasons recorded by the AO for issuing such notice and not on the basis of materialsoutside of the reasons recorded - YES: HC

Whether even having once issued the notice for reopening, it is permissible for the AOto drop the same if through objections the assessee pointed out that the reasons forwhich the notice was issued are completely erroneous - YES: HC


CIT Vs Reliance Petromarketing Ltd (Dated: August 23, 2016)

Whether amount raised by issue of debenturs would still be considered as used for thepurpose of business even if the entire amount raised is advanced to the sister concernwhich is in the same line of business and they have business connection with eachother - YES : HC

Whether decision regarding issue of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D can bemade relying on the decision of High Court which has been challenged by the revenuebefore the Supreme Court - YES : HC



Awasthi Traders Vs CIT (Dated: May 27, 2016)

Whether interest earned on FDRs is liable to be treated as 'business income', wheresuch FDRs are purchased for security purpose for obtaining the contracts which isconnected with the business activities of the assessee - YES: HC


PR CIT Vs Interglobe Enterprises Ltd (Dated: August 19, 2016)

Whether an amount equal to one-half percent of the value of the investment, incomefrom which does not form part of the total income, should only be taken intoconsideration for purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14A - YES: HC


gujarat Gas Trading Company Ltd Vs CIT: (Dated: September 6, 2016)

Whether when the normal practice followed by the Revenue is to club refund order withintimation u/s 143(1) but the assessee claims that it did not receive the intimation, insuch circumstances, denial of condonation of delay in filing revision application u/s 264is legally sustainable - YES: HC


Hatkesh Co Op Hsg Society Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether the subsequent bench of Tribunal can request the President of Tribunal toconstitute a larger bench to decide difference of view on an issue, if the subsequentbench does not agree with the binding decision of a co-ordinate bench - YES: HC

2016-TIOL-2072-HC-MP-IT

PR CIT Vs JK Singh (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether a case for intereference in a matter pending before the settlementcommissioner is made out, merely because the application filed u/s 245-D(1) had beenadmitted and the Report of the Department had not been considered - No: HC


Mahesh Health Care Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: September 1, 2016)

Whether the addition is justified, if the assessee failed to substantiate reason fordamage claimed on account of wastage of X-Ray films- YES: HC


CIT Vs Jagdish L Mehta (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether when it is clear that the assessee has not advanced any loan to the partiesand had not received any interest amount as the loose papers in this regard were notin the handwriting of the assessee or any of his staff members, any disallowance iswarranted - NO: HC

Whether merely because the assessee did not give any information, the AO cancompute capital gain by allowing the cost thereof, add the balance amount to theincome of assessee as capital gain - NO: HC


CIT Vs Max India Ltd (Dated: September 6, 2016)

Whether in the absence of any proximate nexus having been established by the lowerauthorities between the administrative and other expenses and the exempt income, nodisallowance u/s 14A can be made - YES: HC Whether in case there is a presumption,which is in assessee's favour, the Department could have rebutted this presumption bycalling for the records from the bank itself - NO: HC

Whether if there are interest free funds available a presumption would arise thatinvestment would be out of the interest free funds generated or available with thecompany if the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investment - YES: HC



CIT Vs Knight Frank India Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 16, 2016)

Whether when it is clear as per the language of section 145A that it does not apply incase of services provided by the assessee, any disallowance can still be made on suchaccount if the assessee is rendering services only - NO: HC

Whether if it is admitted that the assessee has not claimed any deduction on accountof service tax payable in order to determine its taxable income, can there be anyoccasion to invoke Section 43B of the Act - NO: HC


CIT Vs Jayeek Nag (Dated: August 29, 2016)

Whether a view taken by the AO does not become erroneous merely because the viewof the CIT is different from the view taken by the AO and an inadequate enquiry by theAO would not make the assessment order vulnerable as being erroneous - YES: HC


CIT Vs Late Jameelunnisa Begum (Dated: August 16, 2016)

Whether exemption u/s 54 can be denied to an assessee, when it was concurrentlyheld by both the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT that the possession of constructedresidential premises was available to the assessee within a period of 3 years from thedate of the transfer - NO: HC


Anand Credit Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: August 1, 2016)

Whether when the assessee is directed to produce facts of case before AO, the same isto be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law, it becomes the responsibilityof the assessee to represent its case before the Tribunal - YES: HC


Kaira District Co Op Milk Producers Union Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 24,2016)

Whether the AO having examined assessee's specific claim of deduction during scrutinyassessment, cannot re-examine the said claim which would be based on his merechange of opinion - YES: HC


CIT Vs Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Kahnd Udyog Mandli Ltd (Dated: June 16,2016)

Whether the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are not attracted in respect ofpayments made by the assessee to Mukamams and Transporters who are membersfarmers of the Zone Samiti - YES: HC


CIT Vs N Suseelan (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether when the AO has not arrived at a final conclusion as to whether the assesseewas guilty of concealment of income, or the assessee was guilty of furnishinginaccurate particulars of income, can the penalty for concealment of income still belevied in such a case - NO: HC


CIT Vs Marigold Investrade Ltd (Dated: August 29, 2016)

Whether consideration received by an investment company from sale of its shares,which were held for over a period of four to seven months from the date of theirconversion into Demat form, is chargeable to tax under the head 'capital gains' onlyand not 'business income' - YES: HC


New Kenilworth Hotel Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: June 23, 2016)

Whether if the proceeds of the share issue could be used for running of new hotels, forthe purpose of providing new facility for the growth of tourism in India, benefit of

exemption u/s 80HHD cannot be denied - YES: HC

Whether if the contract is not taken into account and the terms and conditions of saleare examined, can it be said with any amount of certainty as to whether the contractbetween the parties provided for payment of interest or is silent as regards the liabilityof the buyer to pay interest - NO: HC

Whether when the rental arising out of letting out of the terrace is to be treated as anincome arising out of house property, it is necessary the income arising out of lettingout rooms of the hotel should also be similarly treated - NO: HC


Nirma Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: July 21, 2016)

Whether Interest u/s 234D is to be charged on the sum after considering refund whichwas issued on passing intimation u/s 143(1)(a) - NO: HC


Hubtown Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Whether notice for re-assessment issued after the expiry of four year is withoutjurisdication when Revenue fails to prove that assessee has not disclosed all thematerial facts truly and fully which are necessary for assessment - YES: HC


Fuse Media Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: July 12, 2016)

Whether assessment can be reopened when even the Assessing Officer did not discardthe assessee's contention that the claims were originally examined by the AssessingOfficer - NO: HC

Whether assessment can be reopened on the ground of claim of an expenditure whenthe assessee in the objections to such reassessment pointed out that no such claim ofexpenditure was ever made but the issue was not examined by the Assessing Officerwhile disposing of such objections - NO: HC


Pr.CIT Vs Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd (Dated: June 20, 2016)

Whether the assessment can be reopened when the Assessing Officer was acutelyconscious of the nature of transactions and disallowed the income on the ground thatthe income was in the nature of capital gain and not business income - NO: HC

Whether that would amount to permitting the Assessing Officer a second innings whichis not envisaged under the power of reassessment - YES: HC


CIT Vs Gujarat Gas Co Ltd (Dated: August 4, 2016)

Whether in case the Revenue has not been able to prove that there is a mala fideintention on the part of the assesee, can it still be said that the details supplied by theassessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false - NO: HC


Gujarat Machinery Manufactures Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 9, 2016)

Whether the penalty proceedings cannot be initiated when claims made are properlydisclosed in the Balance Sheet as their is no concealment of income or filing inaccurateparticulars of income - YES: HC


IRM Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: July 12, 2016)

Whether an assessee should be denied the benefit of adjustment of business lossesand unabsorbed depreciation arising from amalgamation merely on the ground thatscheme was sanctioned by the High Court after the return was filed although suchsanction would relate back to the appointed date - NO: HC

Whether assessment can be reopened when such adjustment was allowed by the AOalthough the scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned by the High Court after the dateof filing of return - NO: HC

Whether the very effect of the order of High Court sanctioned the scheme relating backto the appointed date would be that for all purposes including for recognising thebenefit of unabsorbed depreciation and losses of a merging Company with those ofprincipal company would be available from such date - YES: HC


Pr.CIT Vs ISF Securities Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether denial of AO to probe further regarding genuineness of share application,would by itself mean that such income is liable to be treated as undisclosed income u/s68, when the share applicant's identity as well as source of his funds is sufficientlyproved - NO: HC


Pr.CIT Vs ITAT (Dated: August 17, 2016)

Whether an order refusing to condone the delay in presentation of an appeal is anorder passed in the appeal itself, and therefore, such order may be challenged beforethe High Court provided the appeal involves a substantial question of law - YES: HC


Somaiya Orango Chemicals Co Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether for the purpose of capital computation the General Reserve should be reducedby the amount transferred from the profit of the last year - Yes: HC

Whether the amount raised from issue of debentures is to be included in the capital ofthe company for computation of surtax when the debentures were redeemable at theoption of the assessee at any time by giving 3 months notice - Yes: HC


Mohd Raza Vs CIT (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether it is open to the AO to levy penalty in a case, where only upon theassessment being picked up in scrutiny for further enquiry, the assessee has come outwith the details and has surrendered the income for taxation - YES: HC

2016-TIOL-2025-HC-KAR-IT

CIT Vs Basaveshwara Sahakari Bank (Dated: August 16, 2016)

Whether the co-operative bank shall be required to deduct tax from the payment ofinterest on time deposits of its members, on or after the 1st June 2015 - YES: HC

Whether the gratuity payable to its employees by Co-operative Bank is available fordeduction - YES : HC


CIT Vs Mohanlal Agarwal (Dated: July 26, 2016)

Whether assumption of jurisdiction by CIT u/s 263 is justified where the assessingofficer was not alive of the provision of Section 40A(3) of the Act and the provisioncontained in Section 40A(3) did not occur to him and it was not also a case where twoviews were possible and the assessing officer had taken one of them - YES: HC

Whether the provisions of section 40A(3) are applicable in cases of block assessmentwhere income had been arrived at by estimation of net profits - Yes: HC


CIT Vs Farrukhabad Investment India Ltd (Dated: July 21, 2016)

Whether notice u/s 148 issued by the Revenue is invalid in the eyes of law whenreasons for issue of notice are recorded later which indicate that on the date of issue ofnotice Revenue has not formed any opinion - YES: HC


Elecon Engineering Company Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 31, 2016)

Whether reassessment is permissible, if the Revenue comes to believe that anadditional ground recorded in the objection letter filed by the audit team indicatesescaped assessment - YES: HC


CIT Vs Schutz Dishman Biotech Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 12, 2016)

Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made on account of inflatedpurchase when the CIT(A) has adopted the norms prescribed under the standard inputand output ratio of consumption but the assessee-company has clearly demonstratedthat it would be better off had it imported raw materials as per the input output normsas it had consumed less than what was prescribed under the input output norms - YES:HC


Standard Operating Procedure (Dated: July 29, 2016)

Whether the modification as to revise time line can be granted, if as per the instructionissued by CBDT as per which bills should be scrutinised within 30 days and "deficiencyor excess claim, if any, shall be communicated to the counsel within a week of suchscrutiny - NO: HC


CIT Vs Micro Instruments Company (Dated: Setember 2, 2016)

Whether where an assessee is found to have fulfilled all the conditions u/s 80-IB in theinitial A.Y and has on account thereof been granted the deduction thereunder, the AOassessing the assessee's income in subsequent years also will be entitled to ascertainwhether in that A.Y the conditions u/s 80-IB remained fulfilled or not - YES: HC

Whether the AO while ascertaining the fulfillment of conditions u/s 80IB for previousyears, is also entitled to question the validity of the grant of a deduction u/s 80-IB in aprevious A.Y on any ground - NO: HC

Whether AO can refuse a deduction for non-compliance of the provisions in respect ofthe A.Y being dealt with by him, but he cannot do so on the ground that the assesseewas wrongly granted a deduction under the impugned provision in a previous A.Y -YES: HC

Whether maintenance of separate books of account for every new undertaking, is acondition precedent for claiming deduction u/s 80-IB - NO: HC

Whether the mere fact that there is no power connection in assessee's new industrialunit which is established seperately on the common plot wherein previous unit wasalready incorporated, can be a ground to disentitle the assessee deduction u/s 80IB onthe new unit - NO: HC


CIT Vs Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing SocietyLtd (Dated: August 2, 2016)

Whether the assessee can be treated as primary agricultural society, carrying on thebusiness of banking or providing credit facilities to its members and is entitled fordeduction under sec. 80P (2)(a)(i) with respect to the interest received from Class Bmembers who were involved in non-agricultural activity.


CIT Vs Abhijit Kadam Memorial Foundation (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether appeals pending before the High Court involving tax effect of less than Rs. 20Lac can be dismissed by observing that not being pressed pursuant to Circular No.21issued by the CBDT dated 10 December 2015 - YES : HC


CIT Vs Aakar Leasing & Financial Services Ltd (Dated: August 8, 2016)

Whether deduction u/s 80M was allowable on gross amount of dividend withoutdeducting the proportionate deduction available u/s 36(i)(viii) -


DCIT Vs Shri Rameshkumar G Bhutra (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether assessee is entitled to deduction from undisclosed income of amount paid byhim for improvement of the the existing business and for removing restrictions orobstructions to the business/right - Yes: HC


ACIT Vs Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd (Dated: August 9, 2016)

Whether assessee is liable to deduct the tax at source u/s 194J from the paymentsmade for transmission of power - NO: HC


KPM Nair Vs ACIT (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether statement recorded u/s 132(4) can form a basis for block assessment only ifsuch a statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed incomeunearthed during search and seizure - YES: HC

Whether the calculation made for the entire block period without any basis or materialfrom the seized documents can be permitted - NO: HC


Neena Kiran Padiyar Vs CIT (Dated: August 18, 2016)

Whether Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter to the AO when the assesseedoes not desire to rebut or lead any evidence in support or otherwise on the additionaldocuments produced before the Tribunal - NO: HC


PR CIT Vs Emerald Company Ltd (Dated: August 16, 2016)

Whether assessment made in the hands of a non-existent entity, is void ab initio -YES: HC


PR CIT Vs Desai Construction Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 20, 2016)

Whether addition can be made on the basis of some material collected by theAssessing Officer much subsequent to the search but no incriminating material wasfound during the course of search - NO: HC


CIT Vs Super Construction Co (Dated: August 4, 2016)

Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment for the blockperiod was barred by limitation when the AO initially issued a Notice u/s.158 BC on17.10.1996 to the assessee, subsequently, the A.O. issued a fresh Notice u/s.158BDon 29.08.1997 in supersession of the Notice issued earlier u/s.158BC and the A.O.proceeded to complete the block assessment u/s.158BD on 01.12.1997.


Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: August 19, 2016)

Whether the expenses on travelling and retainer fees paid in connection with theNagarjuna Project are revenue in character and should be allowed as a deduction incomputing the assessee's income - NO: HCWhether the amount paid to promoters for reimbursement of project developmentexpenditure is eligible for relief u/s 35D of the Act even when the expenditure isincurred before incorporation though reimbursed later - YES: HC


Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether reopening of assessment can be sustained in a case, where, in respect ofeach of the "reasons to believe", there was a specific query by the AO in the course ofthe assessment framed u/s 143(3) originaly - NO: HC


CIT Vs Balaji Yarn Ltd (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether when Revenue has conducted only Survey u/s 133A, an assessment orderpassed u/s 153A without conducting a search u/s 132 is legally not susstainable -YES: HCWhether the provisions of section 292BB of the Act, would not apply when Revenuehas no jurisdiction to issue notice to the assessee - YES: HC



CIT Vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Dated: August 4, 2016)

Whether an Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against theCIT(A)'s order upholding the jurisdiction of the AO to initiate reopening proceedings -YES: HC


CIT Vs Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether in case it is a genuine need of the nature of business carried on by theassessee that certain payments have to be made in cash only as provided in rule6DD(j) also, there can still be any scope of disallowance - NO: HC


Deepali Ajaybhai Patel Vs DCIT (Dated: July 11, 2016)

Whether the assessee can be treated as a dealer in shares, when the Department hadaccepted the status of the assessee to be an investor - NO: HCWhether purchasing the shares of six companies and selling the shares of threecompanies could have converted the status of the assessee from investor into a dealer- NO: HC


Constellation Capital Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether the mere circumstance that a company has transacted with a particular partyrepeatedly, does ipso facto lead to an inference that the assessee's undisclosedincome had escaped assessment due to failure on its part to provide particulars - NO:

HC


CIT Vs Camphor And Allied Products Ltd (Dated: July 21, 2016)

Whether the assessee having supplied all the primary facts, can be held to haveconcealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income - NO: HC


CIT Vs Bahubali Neminath Muttin (Dated: July 13, 2016)

Whether findings of facts by the Tribunal can be said to be perverse when it is evidentthat the books of accounts of the assessee had been rejected by the assessingauthority, in which case the same books of accounts could not be relied upon in anaddition on account of trade creditors and also for arriving at the closing stock - NO:HCWhether there arises any substantial question of law from the findings of the Tribunalwhich cannot be said to be perverse - NO: HC


CIT Vs Dr Avinash C Tiwari (Dated: August 29, 2016)

Whether when a particular issue has not been raised at any time right upto theTribunal, the same is also not a ground taken in the memo of appeal, then it is to beassumed that such issue does not arise from the order of the Tribunal and there is noreason for the High Court to examine that issue - YES: HC


CIT Vs Jay Chem (Dated: August 2, 2016)

Whether when the exchange fluctuation is not on account of a delayed realization ofexport proceeds, such fluctuation arisen therefrom cannot be regarded as being partof the profits derived by the assessee from the export of goods or merchandise - YES:HC


CIT Vs Ethan Estates Developers Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 12, 2016)

Whether when the assessee is precisely adopting a method to treat income as accruedat the point of sale of development rights, such amount can be liable to tax merelyupon acquisition of licence - NO: HC


Amp Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August 2, 2016)

Whether getting shares by allotment on application in public issue is to be construedas 'purchase' as per Explanation to Sec 73 and sale of such shares acquires hues of

speculation business – NO: HC



CIT Vs Amit K Jain Alias Anil K Jain (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether calling upon the assessee to file the return of income within a period of 15days of issue of notice u/s 158BC is in violation of mandatory period of time asstipulated under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act - Yes: HC


CIT Vs Syndicate Bank (Dated: August 23, 2016)

Whether a former decision of the High Court having observed the status of 'NOIDA' as'local authority', would operate as res-judicata for the ITAT in deciding the impugnedstatus, whereas a latter decision of the High Court has already made observations inrespect of status of 'NOIDA' as 'Corporation established by State' - NO: HCWhether 'NOIDA' being a 'Corporation' established by U.P. Industrial AreaDevelopment Act, is entitled for benefit of exemption, and any payment of interest byBank to such Corporation does not require tax deduction at source as per Section194A(3)(iii)(f) - YES: HC


CIT Vs Smt S Jayalakshmi Ammol (Dated: August 1, 2016)

Whether a statement given by the son of the assessee in respect of purchase ofimmovable property which is not corroborated with any documentary evidence, can berelied upon for making any addition in the hands of the assessee - NO: HCWhether the value of difference in the stock of jewellery found during searchproceedings, can be treated as undisclosed income, when the assessee has dulysubmitted the reconciliation statement - NO: HCWhether the statement recorded u/s 132(4) alone, in the absence of anycorroboration, should form the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against theassessee - NO: HC

2016-TIOL-1967-HC-PATNA-IT

Santosh Kumar Jha Vs ITAT (Dated: July 12, 2016)

Whether upon passing of the fresh assessment order the earlier issued demand noticebecame infructuous - YES : HC


Mahendra R Patel Vs ITO (Dated: July 19, 2016)

Whether wealth tax paid for the AYs 1978-79 to 1986-87 can be set-off against theincome tax for the A.Y. 1987-88 - YES: HC


PR CIT Vs L H Sugar Factory Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 1, 2016)

Whether High Court would not entertain an appeal which does not involve anysubstantial question of law - YES: HC


CIT Vs Khemani Distilleries Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 22, 2016)

Whether when during the search assessment, cash seized by the department hasalready been proved genuine by the assessee, it is worth to remand the case again tointerfere in such matter - NO: HC


Chetnaben J Shah Vs ITO (Dated: July 14, 2016)



Bhagchand A Varelani Vs ACIT (Dated: July 13, 2016)



Sheth Multi Link Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August 29, 2016)

Whether reopening of assessment is justified when the Revenue has 'reason tobelieve' that profits or gains chargeable to tax have escaped assessment - YES: HC


Nishant Construction Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 30, 2016)

Whether a remand order can be cancelled and Tribunal can be ordered to decide thecase on merit when there is no requirement of placing additional materials or seekingcross examination in connection with the assessment proceedings - YES : HCWhether a remand order giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee can be rejectedwhen assessee itself does not wish to avail this opportunity in justified circumstances- YES : HC


Kunal Dalmia Vs CIT (Dated: August 4, 2016)

Whether transfer of assessment from Kolkata can be challanged when the assesseedoes not have any residence or business within the jurisdiction of the AssessingOfficer at Kolkata - NO : HC


Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs Chief CIT (Dated: August 18, 2016)

Whether exemption under Section 54F(1) is available where the considerationreceived on sale of capital asset is not appropriated where purchase was earlier thansale or utilized where purchase is after the sale and neither the un-utilized amountswere deposited in specified bank account as notified in terms of Section 54F(4) – NO:HC



Jaytick Intermediates Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: July 14, 2016)

Whether when the assessee is not maintaining the day-today stock register, can thisbecame a relevant ground to reject the books of account u/s 145 (2), to makeaddition on estimated basis - NO: HCWhether when the main appeal preferred against an order is allowed, the appeal filedregarding levy of penalty regarding that order, shall also to be deemed as allowed -YES: HC


CIT Vs Jay Chemicals Industries Ltd (Dated: July 26, 2016)

Whether 90% of Excise refund (Mfg.), Excise refund (Merchant), insurance claim,need to be excluded from the profit of the business for the purpose of makingcalculation of deduction u/s. 80HHC - YES: HC


ITO Vs Maitry Exports (Dated: April 26, 2016)

Whether even if it is held that the assessee received the licence under the exportscheme, the said licence was a capital receipt, could it be taxed under section 28(iiia)of the Act as revenue receipt of the assessee, when the licence is sold - NO: HC


Quintiles Research India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: July 19, 2016)

Whether when the assessee has made true and full disclosure at the time ofassessment, does the Revenue officer has authority to reopen an assessment beyondthe period of four years as mentioned in the proviso to section 147 - NO: HC


Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: July 12, 2016)

Whether when the loan was taken by a cooperative society for its business purpose,particularly for purchase of yarn and not for fixed deposits, can it be held that suchexpenditure incurred would not be covered under the ambit of Section 12(2) - NO: HC


PR CIT Vs Phi Seeds Ltd (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether the provisions in sub-section (2C) of Section 142 before 1st April, 2008empowered the AO to suo motu extend the time for submission of audit report - NO:HC


PR CIT Vs L H Sugar Factory Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 1, 2016)

Whether Carbon credit is capital in nature and not a Revenue receipt - YES: HC

2016-TIOL-1941-HC-AP-IT

CIT Vs Quality Care India Ltd (Dated: July 13, 2016)

Whether any lack of comprehension on the part of the AO in understanding the detailsplaced before him cannot confer a justification for reopening the assessment, longafter the period of four years had expired - YES: HC


CIT Vs Vrundvan Roller Floor Mill (Dated: July 25, 2016)

Whether if the assessee furnishes inflated stock statement to bank for availing largercredit facility, any addition is warranted on account of difference between the stocksshown in the books of account and the statement given to bank - NO: HC


Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 12, 2016)

Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable where there is no satisfaction recorded bythe Assessing Officer regarding concealment of income or for furnishing anyinaccurate particulars and there has been an ambiguity in the and/or difference ofopinion amongst the authorities below as to whether the assessee has made a wrongclaim or has concealed certain particulars – No: HC


Amrapali Fincap Ltd Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether the findings of settlement commission can be set aside where the findings ofthe Settlement Commission are in the realm of assessment of evidence on record andessentially factual in nature – No: HC


Garden Silk Mills Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 1, 2016)

Whether on the date of amalgamation of the company, the transferor company is nomore in existence on the date of issuance of notice and therefore the said notice

issued upon the said company is invalid?


Landis + Gyr Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: July 22, 2016)

Whether a claim of commission paid by the assessee to its agents, can be disallowedby merely holding that no evidence of services rendered by the recipient of theaforesaid sums was established by the assessee, when their books of account as wellas PAN Nos were adduced to show that they were del credere agents - NO: HC


PR CIT Vs Gruh Finance Ltd (Dated: April 26, 2016)

Whether if an assessee is obliged to act as receiving and paying agent for effectingrecoveries from the individual borrowers, income can be brought to tax only when itaccrues and the accrual takes place only in the year in which the amounts recoveredfrom the borrowers are in excess of the amount payable to the buyers of loan portfolio- YES: HC



CIT Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission (Dated: July 12, 2016)

Whether the revised offers of tax made by the assessee is in the nature of spirit ofsettlement and cannot be seen in strict sense of abandoning initial disclosures andreplacing the same by fresh disclosures on the basis of such revised offers - YES: HC


Cvm Jewels Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August 2, 2016)

Whether even if there is some doubt regarding the sale of gold itself or to the personto whom such sale was made, in absence of any basis to hold that the incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessment, reopening of assessment would bepermissible - NO: HC


CIT Vs Dawoodi Bohra Masjid & Kabrastan (Dated: August 4, 2016)

Whether the Dawoodi Bohra Community is a religious trust, entitled to registration u/s12A(a) r.w.s. 12AA - YES: HC


CIT Vs Deversons Industries Ltd (Dated: June 14, 2016)

Whether the excise duty is to be excluded from the total turnover, for the purpose ofcomputation of deduction u/s. 80HHC - YES: HC


CIT Vs Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd (Dated: July 14, 2016)

Whether an assessee is entitled to claim the interest paid on borrowed capitalprovided that the capital is used for business purpose irrespective of what may be theresult of using the capital which the assessee has borrowed - YES: HC -


PR CIT Vs Gujarat Borosil Ltd (Dated: June 21, 2016)

Whether when the Department has adjusted assessee's refund claim against routinetax demand, assessee claimed deduction of such amount on actual payment basis,can the assessee be denied deduction of that amount taking plea of Section 43Bprovisions - NO: HC


Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd Vs JCIT (Dated: July 26, 2016)

Whether depreciation, whether claimed or not, cannot be foisted upon the assesseeeven prior to insertion of Explanation 5 to S.32 (1) with effect from 01/04/2002, whilecalculating deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act - YES: HC


PR CIT Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission (Dated: July 28, 2016)

Whether no relief in extraordinary jurisdiction should be allowed when the Revenuefails to challange the interim order of the commission within the prescribed timeperiod - YES : HC


CIT Vs Eastern Resin And Allied Products Ltd (Dated: July 21, 2016)

Whether the ITO is empowered to make disallowance u/s 14A, in a case where theassessment was reopened u/s 147 - NO: HC


CIT Vs Dr R Rangarajan (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether when the decision of Tribunal to determine the distance between theagricultural land and nearest municipality is based on the reports of local authority,the same can be challenged before the High Court, even if there was no justificationfor the rejection of such report - NO: HCWhether it is open to the Revenue to contend that as per Section 11 of the GeneralClauses Act, 1857, such distance has to be measured, only in a straight line or ahorizontal plane, when it is clear that there is no straight jacket formulae as per theintention of the legislature - NO: HC



CIT Vs Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd (Dated: August 23, 2016)

Whether the decision of Division Bench of a High Court which was rendered withoutthe aid of Supreme Court's judgement which was available at the relevant point oftime and which may have some bearing on the interpretation of the relevant statutoryprovisions, would render such decision of such High Court per incuriam - NO: HC


CIT Vs Satish Bala Malhotra (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether when there is neither any co-relation of investment made and the interestbearing loan and the capital available with assessee, nor anything to indicate thatsuch investment was made out of the capital, any disallowance on such account ispossible - NO: HC

2016-TIOL-1914-HC-JHARKHAND-IT

Raj Trading Company Vs CIT (Dated: June 28, 2016)

Whether the order passed by the Revenue Authorities was justified when the wholeassessment was made on the basis of presumption and surmises and the guidancegiven by the appellate authority have not been followed - NO: HC


CIT Vs Deepak Heritage (Dated: August 8, 2016)

Whether when the CIT (A) had fixed the GP rate at 25% which was not based on anymaterial or cogent reasoning, it is still possible for the Revenue to compute income onthe basis of such average profits - NO: ITAT

2016-TIOL-1912-HC-UKHAND-IT

CIT Vs Aanchal Hotels Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 16, 2016)

Whether in view of Entry 15 of 14th Schedule, only hotels which were setup asEcotourism units or having set up as Ecotourism or units, were expanded as such,would be entitled to the benefit of 80-IC - Yes: HCWhether merely because a No Objection Certificate has been obtained by a hotel fromthe Pollution Control Board, the conditions under Section 80-IC can be said to befulfilled - No: HC


CIT Vs Gloster Jute Mills Ltd (Dated: July 12, 2016)

Whether the profits and gains derived by a hundred per cent EOU is not anexemption, it is deductible, therefore, the losses and depreciation could be set off

from the profits of other units in accordance with the provisions of section 70 - YES:HC


CIT Vs Bharat Lub Industries Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 27, 2016)

Whether if an asset does not belong to the assessee, the quantum of investmenttherein can be a factor in the assessment of the assessee, even if the assessee hasproduced an evidence to show that the land purchased did not belong to him - NO: HC


Bahadursingh T Waghela Vs WTO (Dated: August 1, 2016)

Whether an assessee is liable to pay income tax on the whole of the lottery income inspite of the fact that other beneficiaries of assessee trust have paid taxes on theirrespective share of income from the said lottery prize in their individual capacity - NO:HC


PR CIT Vs Gordhan Becharbhai Patel (Dated: July 26, 2016)

Whether an addition can be made by the AO on account of profit from a developmentagreement, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the materialbrought on record by the AO - NO: HC


PR CIT Vs Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd (Dated: August 8, 2016)

Whether the expense incurred in replacement of remembering cell membrane, whoselife span was not discussed by any of the lower authorities, can be merely rejected onthe basis that the amount incurred was huge - NO: HC


Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission (Dated: June 14,2016)

Whether assessee's application for settlement of tax due should be accepted and thetax can be adjusted with the cash seized duing search opertions - YES : ITAT


V Pandi Vs Settlement Commission (IT & WT) (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether the order of Settlement Commission is required to be taken as conclusiveand it cannot be reopened/revised belatedly, in absence of proof of any allegation offraud or misrepresentation - YES: HC



PR CIT Vs Arun Kumar Spinning Mills Ltd (Dated: July 5, 2016)

Whether mere filing of the SLP before the Apex Court is not a valid ground for notfollowing the judgment of the High Court, when no stay order against the operation ofthe judgment is passed by the Apex court - YES: HC


CIT Vs Bakliwal Financial Services (I) Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 16, 2016)

Whether addition should not be made on account of interest paid on Bank OD andunsecured loan when interest free advances are much less than the interest free funds- YES : HC

Whether under facts of the case, Tribunal is justified in restricting the disallowance u/s14A only to the extent of 5% of dividend income when in a number of cases thedisallowance are made at 2% of the exempt income - YES : HC


PR CIT Vs India Jute And Industries Ltd (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether unabsorbed depreciation can be allowed to carry forward to be set off againstbusiness income in subsequent years beyond the limit of eight years after properverifications in accordance with the provisions of the Act - YES : HC


Avadh Nipl JV Vs DCIT (Dated: August 2, 2016)

Whether reopening of Assessment under sec. 147 is justified beyond a period of fouryears from the end of relevant assessment year when the reasons recorded by the AOfor issuing notice for reopening do not even indirectly suggest that there was anyfailure on part of the assessee to disclose true and full facts and the AO merelydesires to revisit the claim which was granted after full scrutiny in the originalassessment - NO: HC


Arjundev K Khanna Huf Vs ITO (Dated: July 13, 2016)

Whether if the assessee was the owner of the land, no transfer of rights in favour ofany third party ever took place until the half portion of said land was sold in theprevious year, the transaction could have been termed a business adventure - NO: HC-


Atul Intermediates Vs ACIT (Dated: July 26, 2016)

Whether the deduction of profits granted under sec. 801A is to be reduced from theprofits of the business before computing the deduction under sec. 80HHC - YES: HC


Bharat Glass Tube Ltd Vs State Of Gujarat (Dated: June 10, 20160

Whether when the assessee has already deposited the sum as directed, with theRevenue Department as per the direction of Tribunal, can this be treated as theirfulfillment of predeposit condition before the first Appellate Authority - YES: HC


CIT Vs Maganur Builders (Dated: July 28, 2016)

Whether if a subsequent decision based on the earlier decision of HC is carried beforethe SC and the SLPs are pending, until the decision is reversed, the law stands goodas per the verdict given by the High Court - YES: HC


CIT Vs Suresh Jain (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether to consider the explanation as sufficient or not on the basis of materialproduced on record is essentially a question of fact to be concluded on the basis ofmaterial produced on record after appreciation of the evidence - YES: HC

Whether the difference between the price shown at the time of registration andvaluation made by the District Valuation report can be considered as undisclosedinvestment, even if the same is based on presumption and not based on facts - NO:HC

Whether when CIT(A) as well as Tribunal have not found any discrepancy to discardthe books of accounts prepared for the purpose of compulsory audit u/s 142(2A), thatcould result into raising any substantial questions of law - NO: HC


PR CIT Vs Shri Deepak Kumar Patwari (Dated: August 12, 2016)

Whether when the tax effect involved in a case is less than the minimum amountprescribed as per the CBDT circular, it is still possible for the Revenue to file an appeal- NO: HC

HIGH COURT RULING Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs CIT (D ated...

Documents

Transcript of HIGH COURT RULING Hindustan Lever Ltd Vs CIT (D ated...