1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III Vs. PATEL FIELD MARSHAL INDUSTRIES [HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ] - The Questions raised in the appeal are Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.28,66,529/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner by disallowing expenses being `export expenditure'? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting Rs.1,30,000/- by disallowing administrative expenses made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner? etc. Held it cannot be stated that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference.
(Click here for judgment)
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Vs. ADITYA MEDISALES LTD - Appellant-revenue has proposed the following question: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made on account of excess interest payment for Rs.56,63,131/- in view of section 40A(2)(a) of the Act? Held In absence of any question of law, much less substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
(Click here for judgment)
3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Vs HIMATSU BIMET LTD - The appellant revenue has proposed the questions in relation to the Assessment Year 1997-98: Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the addition of Rs.81,07,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained share application money, and confirmation of the same by the CIT(A) holding categorically that the assessee had despite several opportunities given, failed to substantiate the claim before the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings, before the CIT(A) himself and even in course of remand proceedings before the Assessing Officer and thus, whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is perverse in ignoring the overwhelming evidence altogether? Held it cannot be said that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference.
(Click here for judgment)
What's New
a. Take expert view on TDS on port charges, SC tells CBDT (Click for detail)
b. There is no prohibition for claiming any deduction under section 80HHC while applying benefits provided under section 10A (Click for detail)
c. Merely because a judgment has been rendered, the same cannot be a ground for reopening assessment under section 147 (Click for detail)
"The will to conquer is the first condition of victory"
Thanks for your valuable time
"Voice of CA"
CA. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Founder - Voice of CA
Member Central Council - ICAI
Former Chairman - NIRC
Mob : 9811080342, agarwal.s.ca@gmail.com
CA. Kapil Goel, Moderator-Direct Taxes
Mob:9910272806, kapilnkgoelandco@gmail.com
CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator
sidhjasso@yahoo.com
CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA
Mob:9540022533, mukbansal80@gmail.com