CIT Vs. Radhe Developers (HC of Gujrat at Ahemdabad)- In the present case, we find that the assessee had, in part performance of the agreement to sell the land in question, was given possession thereof and had also carried out the construction work for development of the housing project. Combined reading of Section 2(47)(v) and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act would lead to a situation where the land would be for the purpose of Income Tax Act deemed to have been transferred to the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the purpose of income derived from such property, the assessee would be the owner of the land for the purpose of the said Act. It is true that the title in the land had not yet passed on to the assessee. It is equally true that such title would pass only upon execution of a duly registered sale deed. However, we are, for the limited purpose of these proceedings, not concerned with the question of passing of the title of the property, but are only examining whether for the purpose of benefit under Section 80IB (10) of the Act, the assessee could be considered as the owner of the land in question. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), and in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra), the ownership has been understood differently in different context. For the limited purpose of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act, the assessee had satisfied the condition of ownership also; even if it was necessary.
CIT v. ASK Bros. Family Trust -(Karnataka High Court) – It is clear from the above said clauses that the intention of the parties while entering into the agreement dt. 1.4.1994 was only to grant license to the respondent and it cannot be said to be a lease deed. Further, having regard to the nature of consideration to be paid by the licensee as per clause 3 referred to above and the schedule mentioned in the agreement,
Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Central Provident Fund Employees’ Union (Delhi HC)- Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents employed with the petitioner employer and persons with the same designation in the Central Secretariat and a perusal of the records of the
Delhi High Court held that sec. 220(2) provides for levy of interest if the demand is not paid within 30 days of the service of notice u/s 156. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where the assessee pays up the entire demand raised pursuant to the assessment order within the period specified in sec. 156, wins in appeal and the amount is refunded and subsequently loses in further appeal and has to re¬pay the taxes. In such a case, as the assessee is not in default in the first instance, no interest u/s 220(2) is payable for the period when the favourable verdict of the appellate authority was operative.
DIT Vs. Rio Tinto Technical Services (HC Delhi) – The payment in the present case is for furnishing of evaluation report. The fee paid is for the said purpose. To collect and collate the information and furnish evaluation report, the assessee was required and it was necessary to undertake certain tests, mapping and studies.
CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd (Delhi High Court) – The argument of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the approval was not granted by the Joint Commissioner for reopening U/s. 147. Instead, it was taken from the CIT, Delhi-III, New Delhi, who was not competent to approve even when he was a higher Authority inasmuch as Section 151 of the Act specifically mentions Joint Commissioner as the Competent Authority. This contention of the respondent-assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal thereby quashing the assessment proceedings. The contention of the Revenue that it was merely an irregularity committed by the AO and was rectifiable under Section 292B of the Act, has not been found convincing by the Tribunal. Where the Assessing Officer does not himself exercise his jurisdiction under Section 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent.
Present case appears to be one where prima facie the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA are taken undue advantage of. Therefore, at least in those cases where the reference was rejected in previous years on merits by the BIFR, guidelines can be issued to ensure that fresh references in subsequent years should not be mechanically entertained. Learned counsel for the respondent may be right in contending that while registering the references, the Registrar cannot act as quasi judicial authority which is the function of the Board.
The ultimate object and purpose of Section 50C of the IT Act is to see that the undisclosed income of capital gains received by the assessees should be taxed and the law should not encourage and permit the assessee to peg down the market value at their whims and fancy to avoid tax.
CIT Vs. Monto Motors Ltd. (Delhi HC)- Advertisement expenses when incurred to increase sales of products are usually treated as a revenue expenditure, since the memory of purchasers or customers is short. Advertisement are issued from time to time and the expenditure is incurred periodically, so that the customers remain attracted and do not forget the product and its qualities.
CIT Vs. Wimco Seedlings Ltd. (Delhi HC) – It was held that unless and until there was actual expenditure for earning the exempted income, there could not be any disallowance under section 14A. While we agree that the expression ‘expenditure incurred’ refers to actual expenditure and not to some imagined expenditure, we would like to make it clear that the ‘actual’ expenditure that is in contemplation under section 14A(1) of the said Act is the ‘actual’ expenditure in relation to or in connection with or pertaining to exempt income. The corollary to this is that if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income, no disallowance can be made under section 14A of the said Act.
