CIT vs. Darshan Securities Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)- During the assessment year, the assessee returned an Income of Rs.2,25,04,588 from service charges. The assessee had a loss of Rs.02,23,32,127 in share trading. The assessee had a dividend income of Rs.4,79,325/. The assessee claimed that in computing the gross total income for the purpose of the explanation to Section 73, the income from service charges had to be adjusted against the loss in share trading.
The crux of the controversy is whether the appellant which is a Company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 is entitled to have two kinds of memberships as aforesaid. The only difference in the rights of the two kinds of members is that while the Member Exporters have a right to elect and to be elected as office bearers of the appellant, the Registered Exporters have no such right.
The Synodical Board of Health Services Vs DGIT (Delhi HC)-It was held that the principle of res judicata does not apply and for each period the question of grant of exemption has to be examined separately. The competent authority in the said case had brought on record evidence to show that the records and accounts were not properly maintained and were obviously subjected to manipulation which was decipherable.
CIT vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Lease rental in monetary terms is a sum total of the financing charge and the amount embedded in it in the form of the capital sum. What the assessee needs to do, while offering for tax income derived from lease is, to separate the financing charge from the amount recovered towards capital, that is, the capital recovery amount. The financing change is determined by applying the IRR to the net investment made in the asset.
The admitted position is that the amount of Rs.30,63,310/- was shown by her in the return. That being the position, it cannot be said that there was any concealment. There is no dispute about the fact that the amount was correctly mentioned and therefore, there is also nothing inaccurate in the particulars furnished by her.
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi ( Delhi HC)- that interest at the rate of 6% per annum under Rule 8 could have been awarded to the respondent on the seized Indian currency only. The learned Single Judge has however applying the said Rule also awarded interest on the seized foreign currency and which cannot be sustained. The Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj Kumar (supra) has held that a writ remedy cannot be availed to circumvent the non grant of interest by the authority, Commissioner, Central Excise in that case. It was also observed that in any event a writ petition for award of interest simplicitor was not maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedy by way of appeal or by way of a suit. . Else the position is squarely covered by Suganmal and M/s Orient Enterprise (supra) and this writ petition in the nature of enforcement of a civil liability that is claim for interest in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention of money is not maintainable. It is not as if payment of interest under Rule 8 (ii) was mandatory (as under Rule 8(i)) and which could be enforced by way of a writ petition. The impugned judgment awarding interest under Rule 8(i) qua Indian currency also can thus not be sustained.
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. DCIT (Delhi HC)- We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The order passed under Section 263 became final. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 263 has decided the issue himself and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income on the basis of his decision. He has not relegated the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.
CIT Vs. Rajan Nanda (Delhi HC) -Every assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with the provisions of Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act. The job of the Court is to simply look at the provisions of the Act and to see whether these provisions allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax.
In the present case, there is no indication of the assessee’s hire purchase agreements reflecting bifurcation of the EMIs into principal and interest components. In the absence thereof, the common and accepted usage of the indexing system of accounting in the hire-purchase trade must be held to be valid as otherwise the rate of interest under the mercantile system in so far as the later EMIs are concerned would be far higher and contrary to the rate prescribed in the assessee’s agreements. Further, as the assessee had itself employed this system of accounting in its books of account, applying the law laid down in Sanjeev Woollen Mills (supra), the Department was bound to accept the same for the assessment proceedings.
CIT VS. Mohan Meakin Ltd. (Delhi HC) – In the case of the uncashed cheques amount to Rs.1,97,758/-, the finding of the Tribunal is that that there was no claim for deduction in any of the earlier years and, therefore, the amount cannot be added under Section 41(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute, as it cannot be, that the amount of uncashed cheques was not allowed as deduction in any of the earlier assessment years. As per the assessee this represents the cheques received and remaining on hand on the last day of the accounting period. Tribunal has accepted this stand. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have not stated why the stand of the assessee was not acceptable. Revenue has also not stated and averred that the assessment order now passed, this aspect was not considered and examined. In these circumstances, Section 41(1) can hardly have any application. We accordingly, uphold the decision of the Tribunal deleting the addition.
