Palam Jain Educational & Welfare Society Vs DGIT (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee is already granted exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), the fresh application of exemption cannot be rejected in view of third proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) as the exemption can be withdrawn only in the event that conditions under which the exemption is granted are not fulfilled and not before that.
Sanjay Ghai Vs Dy. CIT (Delhi High Court)- Impugned order dated 14th November, 2007 is set aside with a direction that the petitioner or his authorised representative will appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), New Delhi on 29th August, 2011 at 2 p.m.
Earth Castle Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Imposition of penalty under s 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the assessee is unable to substantiate an explanation in relation to the addition made by the AO in respect of the undisclosed income found during the search and also did not file appeal against the addition.
DCIT Vs Tata Investment Corporation Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- All income cannot be taxed, but only those incomes on which the taxpayer has a legitimate and enforceable right is liable to tax, the ITAT held. According to ITAT order, taxmen do not have the right to tax any receipts as the law is well settled that all receipts are not income, only those receipts with the character of income can be assessed to tax. The ITAT held that income can be considered “accrued” only when the taxpayer has a right to receive the income. Without a legally enforceable right, there cannot be an accrual of income.
Bombay High Court, while disposing a batch of writ petitions filed by The Retailers’ Association of India along with the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India and Multiplex Association of India, upheld the constitutional validity of levy of service tax on renting of immovable property with its retrospective amendment. However, the operation of the order has been stayed for four weeks to enable the petitioners to move the Supreme Court.
The Income tax Department Department has identified the multiple PANs belonging to the same person through an automated Computer System of the Department. Till date 11,69,238 multiple PANs have been detected and deleted.
The Income Tax Department takes several punitive and deterrent steps to unearth unaccounted money and curb tax evasion. These include scrutiny of tax return; surveys, search and seizure actions; imposition of penalty and launching of prosecution in appropriate cases. Information Technology has also been used in a big way in collection, collation and dissemination of taxpayer information. Tax Information Network (TIN) has been set up as a depository of important tax related information which can be accessed by the Department. The basic components of TIN are information relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS), payment of taxes and high value transactions reported in Annual Information Returns (AIR).
Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi- III (Supreme Court of India)- The question which arose before the Tribunal was that whether these items used for fabricating structures to support and install various machinery of the sugar plant are capital goods in terms of the Rule 57Q. The Tribunal while allowing the MODVAT credit found that these items, except MS sections and shapes, used for raising structure to support the various machines, parts of machinery of the plant would be covered by the explanation to Rule 57Q as a capital goods.
Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & C., Cochin (Supreme Court of India)- Amount received by the cellular telephone company from its subscribers towards SIM Card will form part of the taxable value for levy of service tax, for the SIM Cards are never sold as goods independent from services provided.
Rajendra G. Shah V/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distributiohn Company Limited (Bombay High Court) -The petitioner had thus admitted even in the plaint in the suit that the premises were used exclusively for the purpose of office not only by him but were shared with another advocate principally practicing in Mumbai. In view of the fact that the suit premises are exclusively used for the purpose of office, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should be charged for electricity consumed at the rate meant for domestic use, i.e. LT I – Residential use. The user of the suit is clearly a non-domestic and non-residential. The executing Court below therefore did not commit any error in holding that the decree which was passed in RCS No. 194 of 2000 was non-executable in view of the fact that the revised tariff had been fixed by the MERC which make the classification of the tariff only on the basis of domestic and non-domestic uses and not on the basis of residential use as opposed to commercial use.
