DCIT, Haldwani Vs Shri Om Prakash Bhargava (ITAT Delhi) – Assessing Officer estimated the income on the basis of general information from Chief Agriculture Officer which was never confronted with assessee. Further such general information was with respect of earning from grain crop. But assessee was growing flowers and decorative plants which have been accepted by the revenue in past years. The assessee is holding the land of 24 bighas. Income of Rs.4,26,000/- have been accepted in the immediate preceding year, i.e. 2004-05. In this year, income from agriculture is only Rs.2,50,000/-. Considering all these relevant facts and the pleadings of the assessee, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly accepted the claim of the assessee and we sustain the same on the issue.
Pushpsons International Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – The agreement to serve has not been placed on record and its terms have not been paraphrased in any submission. Further, it has not been shown that the understanding, if any, came to an end only when he became a partner and not when he left India. Factually, no service has been rendered to the assessee in the period of absence for education. Therefore, it is held that the disallowance of Rs. 36,000/- was rightly made.
CIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Goel- The assessee running coaching classes followed mercantile system of accounting. Total fees for the entire course, which may be of two years duration was taken in advance at the time of admission of the students. For the A.Y. 1997-1998, the assessee claimed that the fees received in the relevant year were to be carried forward to the next assessment year as they related to the next financial year. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s claim.
Ramalingam Charities Vs CIT, Salem (Madras High Court) – Tribunal considered the claim of the revenue as well as the assessee and pointed out that having regard to the fact that the Trust deed was not existing solely for the educational purposes and that the trust had engaged itself in other activities by running orphanages, Kalyana mandapam, money lending business, etc., it cannot be held that the Trust was one solely carrying on the activities of educational institutions. The Tribunal further pointed out that having regard to the fact that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions laid down under Section 11(5) of the Act and had diverted the funds to its sister concern, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. Honourable HC also held that since the assessee has not satisfied the requirement under Section 11(5) to claim benefit under Section 12 of the Act so not eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 and 12 for amount received as corpus fund.
CIT, Meerut v The District Excise Office (Allahabad High Court) – The argument of the learned senior standing counsel that Section 206C does not find place in any of its clauses of sub section (1) and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable ignores the clause referred to above in Sections 246 and/or 246A of the Act. The clause referred to above does not relate to any particular section of the Act. It will be attracted subject to fullfilment of its ingredients. It is in the nature of a residuary clause and gives a right to an assessee to challenge an order by way of appeal if he is so aggrieved subject to the condition that he denies his liability to be assessed under the Act.
Shayama Sanjay Shah v CIT (Gujrat High Court) – Though it is true that powers under section 273A of the Act are discretionary powers, it is equally true that powers conferred under a statute are required to be exercised in consonance with the provisions of the said statute. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the Commissioner instead of recording satisfaction or otherwise in respect of the grounds prescribed under section 273A of the Act, has rejected the petition on irrelevant grounds, firstly, on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for failure in filing the return of income belatedly, and secondly, on the ground that the petitioner had already paid the tax payable in consequence of the order of penalty, which ground in view of the provisions of section 273A of the Act should have, in fact, weighed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the Commissioner has not exercised discretion as required under section 273A of the Act and as such the impugned order suffers from the vice of non application of mind to the relevant factors and as such cannot be sustained.
