Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Versus CIT (Delhi High Court)- The Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated but he was not so justified when the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. Consequently, we answer the first part of question in affirmative in favour of Revenue and the second part of the question against the Revenue.
The government was put on the Wall of Shame at the annual general meeting of the International Air Transport Association in Singapore, along with the European Union Parliament and the governments of the UK, Germany and Austria, for imposing high taxes on air travel.
Some of the subscribers of PPF (HUF) accounts had closed the accounts on maturity or thereafter between 13th May, 2005 to 7.12.2010 (before the issue of the aforesaid amendment). Some of such account holders, were not paid interest at PPF rates on the deposits retained beyond the maturity period (without further subscriptions). Those subscribers had been representing that interest at PPF rate may also be paid to them on the deposits that were retained in PPF accounts beyond maturity period. The matter has been examined in this Ministry and it has been decided that interest at PPF rate would be paid on those PPF (HUF) accounts, which had attained the maturity after 13.5.2005 but closed by the subscribers before 7.12.2010,subject to the conditions that the accounts had not been extended thereafter and the deposits were retained in such accounts without further subscriptions.
The net direct tax collection during the first two months of the current fiscal fell by 47.93 per cent, mainly on account of dolling out of large refunds by the IT department. Net direct tax collections, gross collections minus refunds, were down by 47.93 per cent at Rs 12,954 crore during the first two months of the current fiscal, the finance ministry said in a statement.
In supersession of this Ministry’s Circular No. 9/2011, dated 31-3-2011 and 25/2011 dated 12-5-2011, Ministry of Corporate Affairs hereby mandated certain class of companies to file Balance sheets and Profit and loss Account along with Director’s and Auditor’s Report for the year 2010-11 onwards by using XBRL taxonomy. The Taxonomy Business Rules, Validity tools etc. required for preparation the above documents in XBRL format as the existing Schedule VI and Accounting Standards notified under the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 have been prepared and hosted on the website of the Ministry at www.mca.gov.in . The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about XBRL have been framed by the Ministry and they are being annexed as Annexure I with this circular for the information and easy understanding of the stakeholders. To enable filing on XBRL by stakeholders, MCA-21 portal will have XBRL filing module by July, 2011. Actual date will be informed separately.
In order to provide regular route for fast track exit by defunct company, for getting its name struck off from the register of companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has decided to modify the existing route through e-form 61 and has introduced Fast Track Exit mode for defunct companies under section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956. This scheme is launched to give an opportunity for fast track exit by a defunct company, for getting its name struck off from the register of companies. Such companies may make an application to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs in the eForm FTE, accompanied by filing fee of Rs. 5,000/-
Vishwanath Khanna Vs. UOI & Others (Delhi High Court) – The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle (20)(1), New Delhi passed order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act dated 02.06.1995 declaring that cash found during search as unexplained and hence, cash seized of Rs. 49,86,500/- was retained and not released. Subsequently, vide another order under Section 132(5) dated 19.06.2005, various disputed additions were made and tax and penalty @200% were raised. Therefore, entire silver seized valuing Rs. 4,44,66,395/- was retained and not released. We may mention at this state that the Income Tax Department disputed the status of M/s Foto Traders, as according to it, it was an unregistered partnership firm. Therefore, the Department intended to tax income in the hands of this firm. The concerned Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) in the name of M/s Foto Traders after making huge additions of 10,49,53,527/- on protective basis.
Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – The Tribunal in the instant case has referred the matter back to the AO categorically recording that there was no sufficient material placed before it to demonstrate as to what were the services rendered by the DSAs from which it could be ascertained as to how allowability to pay such brokerage had arisen and could be worked out. According to the Tribunal, mere Agreement was not sufficient for this purpose, as it does not reveal on what basis the brokerage is payable and is looked into what and how the assessee would be liable to pay such brokerage. Section 254(1) of the Act which confers power upon the Tribunal to decide the appeal clearly states that after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties, it may pass such an order thereon as thinks fit. After stating the principle on which commission paid by the assessee to DSAs would be treated as expenditure relating to particular areas, for want of sufficient evidence to arrive at a definite finding in this behalf, the Tribunal, in its discretion, remitted the case back to the AO giving clear guidelines how to examine the issue on the basis of records to be produced and what course of action, the AO was supposed to take. Honorable High Court do not find any infirmity in this approach of the Tribunal and dismisses the appeal in limine.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eastern Medikit Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Where the CIT while exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act, sets aside the order of the AO on merits as well and gives his categorical finding on the issue involved, naturally the Tribunal will be within its right to examine as to whether the decision on the said issue was proper or not and for this purpose, the Tribunal itself would be entitled to examine the issue on merits. It was, in these circumstances, the aforesaid two cases were decided. However, where the issue was not examined by the AO and on this ground CIT revised the order without giving his own findings, but directing the AO to do the necessary exercise, it was not proper for the Tribunal to decide the same, converting itself to a Court of first instance and deciding the factual aspect on which neither AO nor CIT(A) had returned any findings.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mukesh Luthra (Delhi High Court) – Since the Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the additions made by the AO, the Honourable High Court has remitted back the matter to the Tribunal to decide as to whether M/s Globe Meditech was a dummy concern of the assessee herein and the order of the CIT (A) dealing with the addition holding that the assessee herein was not the benamidar is correct or not. The question of law is answered in the aforesaid terms, without any order as to cost.
