|| New User || My profile || My Book Marks || SMS Services || Annual Subscription || Lost Password ||
Stay
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Refund claim denied - period of limitation - cause of action arose only on 15/11/06, when they paid for the second time as a result of audit objection - refund claim is withing period - Tri Rejection of Refund claim – appellant filed under protest letter on 7.1.1987. - after two days they filed six nos. classification lists - thus, the under protest letter has no effect in the eye of law - Tri An educational qualification recognized by law will not cease to be recognized by law merely because for practicing in the field to which the qualification relates, a further examination held by a body regulating that field of practice is to be taken. - HC Fulfillment of export obligation – it is not open to the customs authorities to presume that extension of the LOP would be granted by the Development Commissioner to facilitate evasion of duty. - HC Merely because the CIT is having a different view, the same would not entitle him to initiate revision proceedings u/s 263, if the view taken by the assessing officer is one of the possible views. - Tri Repayment of capital balance in cash would not attract the provisions of sec. 269T since it does not constitute loan or deposit. - Tri Penalty u/s 271E - violation of sec. 269T - the interest amount and the principal amount were paid in two different occasions - each amoount less then Rs. 20,000 - No penalty - Tri Disallowance under section 14A required finding of incurring of expenditure and where it was found that for earning exempted income no expenditure had been incurred, disallowance under section 14A could not stand. - Tri Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of TDS - If the element of income cannot be established, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked - Tri Gift of immovable property - assessee's brothers and mother have gifted their 1/8th undivided share - very heavy burden lies on the department to prove that it is not the real one - Tri Addition on account of negative stock - The quantitative details as submitted duly explained that there was no negative stock in any of the month. - Tri Rate of tax on the sale of Copper Wire Bars and Copper Cathods - whether would be charged and retained @ 4% or 1% - chargeable at 1%. - HC Appeal u/s 483 – modification sought by the appellant is against the fabric of the Scheme and in the domain of modifications of the Scheme and not of modification for working of the Scheme. - non-compliance of Section 2(19AA), would not render the Scheme unworkable. - HC Since the Director of the appellant-company was actively involved in the day to day activity of the appellant-company penalty on him under Rule 26 has been correctly imposed. - Tri In absence of direct or indirect involvement of the Managing Director in the clandestine removal of the goods no personal penalty under Rule 26 is imposable on him. - Tri Cenvat Credit denied - galvanization does not amount to the manufacture - The duty paid on the G.P. Coils etc., is more than Cenvat Credit taken and needs to be adjusted against the demand of the Cenvat Credit. - Tri Extended period of limitation - in cases of intention to evade duty relevant date for computation of extended period for show cause is the date of knowledge - Tri Rejection of transaction value and enhancement of assessable value has to be on the basis of some evidences on record. - NIDB data cannot be made the basis for enhancement of value - Tri    Left Stop Right

Please login.

Only paid members can access this page.

User Login
Username  
Password  
 
Stay sign in
 
 
 
New User / Registeration
Forget Password - Click here to retrieve your Password

 


2012 (4) TMI 267 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax1 Versus M/s.Hindustan Lever Ltd.



Return of income claiming deduction u/s 80I, 80IA and 80HH – AO accepted the claim with little variation - CIT issued a notice under Section 263 mentioning that research expenditure incurred by the assessee is inextricably linked with the business of the assessee and business in those products which are manufactured in the units entitled to a deduction under Sections 80I, 80IA and 80HH - Tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT holding that the jurisdiction under Section 263 has not been invoked properly - Held that:- As a result of an erroneous order passed by an Assessing Officer, where the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by an assessee, the order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue -there was a complete failure on the part of the AO to apply his mind to the issue of whether the expenditure which was claimed should be allocated as between the units in respect of which the deduction had been claimed and on whether there was a direct or proximate nexus - jurisdiction under Section 263 was in order and that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the Commissioner.

Tribunal is right in holding that the entire cess can be claimed against taxable income? - the composite income derived from sale of tea grown and manufactured by the assessee cess payable on green tea leaves is allowable as a business expenditure in computing the composite income under Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules,1962.


 

what is new what is new

Subscription UpdatesNewslettersCommunicationOther Options


Go To Top

Go to Mobile Website

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.