ACIT Vs Dhariya Construction Co. (Supreme Court)- The opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purposes of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon.
NRB Bearings Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -The Tax Payer was conducting manufacturing activities at four different locations across India. It had installed additional machinery to increase capacity at one of the locations i.e. the Aurangabad unit. The assessee claimed additional depreciation on the new machinery as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act which permits the assessee to additional depreciation on installation of new machinery. The same was allowed by the Tax Officers (TO) as well.
First of all, we will consider the second part of the submission i.e. since the person to whom the payment was made has already offered the same for taxation, hence provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. This is not correct. Because the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [supra] was rendered under the provisions of sec.201. Secondly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide para-10 has clearly mentioned that in view of Circular No.275/201/95-IT(Clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB) dated 29-1-1997 no demand u/s.201[1] could be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee.
DLF today said the Income Tax (I-T) department has slapped additional tax notices of Rs 1,137.23 crore on the company and its subsidiaries for the 2009-10 assessment year. The company said it has challenged these orders before the appellate authorities.
DCIT Vs. Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is under the Ministry of Shipping, Govt. of India. Assessee’s business is in ship building, ship repairing and general engineering. The ld. A.O. made an addition of Rs. 2 crores, which was stated as received from Government for upkeep of plant & machinery. The ld. A.O. was of the view that this is the revenue expenditure and the amount was received, as per the ld. A.O., on revenue account. He, therefore, treated it as income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal.
Shri Pradeep Kumr O Bhala Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – The submission is considered and the decisions are perused. There is no denying fact that, the gift has come through banking channel, the donor has filed return showing taxable income, however, the fact that has not been denied by the appellant is that, he is not aware of anything about the donor. Neither the donor is available at the address given nor has he been produced for examination. The appellant is not even aware of the activities of the donor and his age. The donor is not related to the appellant. Owning of Pan and filing of return is not a conclusive proof that, the gift is genuine. Payment through banking channel cannot be a conclusive proof of the genuineness of the gift.
ITO Vs. United Estate P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly observed in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [supra] that for making an addition under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB two conditions must be satisfied jointly. (1)(a) There must be a debit of the amount to the profit & loss account, (clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB) the amount so debited must be carried to the reserve. Further, the reserve contemplated by clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB is required to be carried through the profit & loss account.
I was recently going through the website of Fast Facts Computer Systems Limited and noticed a very good utility developed by them. The utility is named by them as e-Payment Auto Filler . This utility is really useful. The utility is excel based. In this utility you can save your details which you have to fill every time you pay tax online i.e. TAN, PAN, Name, Assessment, Year, Address Etc.
