Interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be charged in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in assessment order – The High Court observed that in the case of Anjum M. H Ghaswala the Supreme Court has held collection of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was mandatory. The High Court relied on decision of Dehradun Club Ltd. (ITA No. 15 of 2006) wherein it was held that there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H Ghaswala but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.

The Karnataka HC has held that the reduction in the share of partners after the reconstitution of partnership firms does not amount to a taxable transfer. Further, it reaffirmed that, tax planning within the frame work of law is permitted.The principles laid down in this decision can also be applied to the limited liability partnerships, in similar circumstances.

Revenue having accepted the declaration of the valuation of the selfsame jewellery given by the assessee as on 31st March, 1989 as correct valuation for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act, there is no reason why the same valuation should not be treated to be a reliable base for the purpose of computing the capital gain under the Act by the process of reverse indexation.

Information under article 28 of DTAA cannot be disclosed on the basis of un-signed transfer requests of Indian national to a Swiss Bank to transfer money to overseas bank accounts of two foreign companies. The Indian tax authority seized documents from an Indian national which were believed to indicate the existence of undeclared income deposited in a company’s bank accounts in Singapore. Pursuant to Article 28 (1) of the India-Singapore DTAA, the Indian tax authority sent a request for information to its Singapore counterpart (the Comptroller of Income-tax). In support of the request, the Indian tax authority relied on unsigned transfer instructions allegedly issued by the Indian national as evidence that the Indian national remitted monies to the Singapore Company’s bank accounts. The Comptroller filed an application in the High Court u/s 105J of the Singapore Income-tax Act for an order requiring the bank to produce the company’s bank records.

For issue a notice u/s 143(2), reasons to believe are not required to be recorded in writing and power of the Assessing Officer to take up the return for scrutiny is much wider and the jurisdictional pre-conditions stipulated u/s 147 are not required to be satisfied. The respondents have agreed to and will be bound by the statement to withdraw notice u/s 147/148, but will have liberty and right to issue fresh notice u/s 147/148, after recording reasons to believe. The said notice will not be barred because the respondents had not initiated proceedings by issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act or they had earlier issued notice under Sections 147/148. With the aforesaid findings and observations writ petition is disposed of.

The material on record discloses that the assessee on being pointed out by the authorities for not paying the service tax, has paid the service tax with interest even before the issue of show cause notice. Sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, categorically states that if tax and interest is paid and the same is informed to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice calling upon the authorities to pay penalty. It is unfortunate that inspite of statutory provisions, the authorities have issued a show cause notice claiming penalty. So tax and interest was paid before issue of show cause notice.

As regards the provision for bad and doubtful debts, the question again is whether in computing the income of the trust on commercial principles, the provision can be deducted or where the deduction can be allowed only in accordance with the provisions of Section 36(i)(vii) read with Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. We have already held that the income of the trust available for application to charitable purposes in India should be computed not in accordance with the strict provisions of the Income Tax Act but should be computed in accordance with commercial principles and it is on this footing that the payment of Income Tax Act under the VDIS was treated as a deduction and as proper amplication of the income of the trust. The same line of reasoning holds good for the provision for bad and doubtful debts. Even under the computation provision of the Act such a provision was considered allowable up to and including the assessment year 1988-89 and it was only from the assessment year 1989-90 that the Act required that a mere provision would not be allowable as a deduction and the actual writing off of the debt was a necessary pre-condition. Be that as it may, under the commercial principles it has always been recognized that a provision, reasonably made for a loss or an outgoing, can be deducted from the income if there is apprehension that the debt might become bad. There is nothing brought on record to show that the provision was not made bona fide. In such a situation the ratio of the decisions cited by us while dealing with the deductibility of the taxes paid under the VDIS will equally apply. We accordingly hold that while computing the income available to the trust for application to charitable purposes in India in accordance with Section 11(1)(a) the provision for doubtful debts must be deducted.

Inland Ports were specifically mentioned as an infrastructure facility in the statutory provision and in the understanding of the CBEC, which administers the Customs Act, an Inland Container Depot was actually an Inland Port. There is also no dispute that even in 1983 amendments had been made to the Customs Act by treating the Inland Container Depots as part of the customs port for purpose of customs formalities and clearances.

This Court had the occasion to consider similar issues in a Judgment delivered in the case of DIT (Exemption) v. Chembur Gymkhana [Income Tax Appeal No. 5568 of 2010, dated 13-2-2012]. This Court, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, has held that the fact that the membership of the club is open to a section of the community would not detract from the fact that the club has been constituted for the advancement of any other object of general public utility.

The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the notice issued on 30.12.2004 under Section 143(2) of the Act was validly served upon the assessee-firm on 31.12.2004 as claimed by the Assessing Officer. We proceed on the assumption that the notice was not served on either of the two partners of the assessee-firm and that it was served on some person who was not specifically authorised to receive notice. Even so, we are not persuaded to hold that there was no valid service of the notice upon the assessee-firm.