Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The substantial question of law raised was whether an assessee claiming exemption u/s 11 can claim that income exempt u/s 10(33) and 10(38) to be excluded while computing the application of income for charitable or religious purpose. Held that there

The matter raised before the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi in the instant case is that whether components of a composite transaction amounting to supply of labour/ rendition of service(s), under a Works Contract ought to be classified onl

In the Assessment Year 1980-81, the assessee had issued 6,25,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.62.50 lakhs was adjusted by issue of shares and the balance application money was refunded to the subscribers. The increase in th

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2004 (7) TMI 98] which was based on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wi

Assessee is a Partnership firm involved in the business of banking and registered under the Kerala Money Lending Act.Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the respondent-assessees. The firm had accepted payments from the partners, during the releva

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad, relying on the decision in the Meghmani Dyes case, held that if prescribed Returns are filed by Assessee giving correct information, then extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In the instant case also, prescr

The Appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide a non-speaking Order dated February 26, 2013 (“Impugned Order”) ordered pre-deposit of 40% of the demand under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made

Assessee is an individual having salary income and income from other sources. Return of income for A.Y. 2002-03 was filed on 31.03.2003 u/s 139 and for A.Y.2004-05, return was filed on 31.03.2005 u/s 139. After the filing of the return of income, no

Assessee is an Investment Management Consultant. During Scrutinyassessment, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed a loss of Rs.93,63,235/- on account of loss on foreign currency futures. The AO disallowed the loss considering the provisions of

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad relying upon the decision in the Ranbaxy Laboratory case held that under Section 11BB of the Excise Act, there is no provision that relevant date for determining the rate of interest will be postponed in any eventuality.