Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd Vs ACIT (Bombay HC) – In the present case, admittedly, the reopening of the assessment is beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The jurisdictional condition under Section 147 in such a case is that there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that Assessment Year. As noted earlier, in the narration of facts, there was a disclosure by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings of the fact that (i) During the previous year ending 31 March 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into with a Swiss Company; (ii) Under the MOU, the outstanding balance of the loan was settled at Swiss Francs 480,000 as against the outstanding balance of 800,000 Swiss francs;
Maheshwari Agro Industries Vs. UOI (Rajasthan HC) – the income assessed by the Assessing Officer is almost 47 times of the income declared by the assessee viz. Rs. 1,44,42,320/- against the declared income of Rs.3,48,140/-. The disputed demand of tax also would be almost the same multiples of the declared and admitted tax liability or may be more because of interest and penalties.
CIT Vs. Sanjaykumar Mansukhlal Dhabba (Gujrat HC)- In the said case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries [Supra], the Division Bench of this Court upheld the view of the Tribunal limiting the additions to 25%, where it was found that the goods were received from the parties other than the persons who had issued the bills of such goods. Though the purchases were shown to have been made by making payment to some other parties, the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal both came to the conclusion that under such circumstances, the likelihood of the purchase price being inflated could not be ruled out.
CIt Vs. Sayaji Industries Ltd (Gujarat High Court)- There were voluminous records suggesting that the LGDA is not only the sole selling agent of the assessee, but it also does not undertake any other task except to promote the sales of the assessee company. Additionally, the assessee has larger number of customers and the LGDA supports such customers and maintains its agents and branches across the country. In view of such complex set up, between the assessee and the LGDA, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in accepting the entire commission paid to LGDA.
CIT Vs. Smt. Shaila Agarwal (Allahabad High Court ) – he second proviso to Section 153A of the Act, refers to abatement of the pending assessment or re-assessment proceedings. The word ‘pending’ does not operate any such interpretation, that wherever the appeal against such assessment or reassessment is pending, the same alongwith assessment or reassessment proceedings is liable to be abated. The principles of interpretation of taxing statutes do not permit the Court to interpret the Second Proviso to Section 153A in a manner that where the assessment or reassessment proceedings are complete, and the matter is pending in appeal in the Tribunal, the entire proceedings will abate.
CIT Vs. S R M B Udyog Ltd. (Kokata High Court)- Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, effect of amalgamation is winding up of the transferor company. Moreover, from the terms of the amalgamation which have been accepted by this Hon’ble Court, it appears that whatever proceedings were pending or were sought to be initiated after the date of the order of amalgamation, were to to done against the transferee company. Under such circumstancs, we could gather from the facts that the appeal was preferred by SRMB Udyog Ltd. before the Commissioner of Income Tax after the order of amalgamation was passed; similarly the department preferred an appeal subsequently. It is settled law that no proceedings can be brought against a nonexistent person either natural or artificial.
CIT v. EHPT India P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- Section 10A provides for deduction for profits derived from the export of software for a period of ten years. During the period of tax-holiday, it is desirable that the same method of computing the profits of the STP unit is adopted so that any distortion is avoided. We must however clarify that we are not to be understood as laying down as a proposition that in all cases arising under Section 10A, where the question of apportionment of common/indirect expenses between the taxable and the exempt units arises, the head-count method is the most appropriate method.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) -Assessing Officer was of the opinion that no part of the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. In fact, after the audit party brought the relevant aspects to the notice of the AO, she held correspondence with the assessee. Taking into account the assessee’s explanation regarding non-requirement of TDS collection and ultimately accepted the explanation concluding that in view of the Board’s circular, tax was not required to be deducted at source. No income had therefore escaped assessment. Despite such opinion of the Assessing Officer, when ultimately the impugned notice came to be issued the only conclusion we can reach is that the Assessing Officer had acted at the behest of and on the insistence of the audit party.
CIT Vs. I.P. India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) – Tt was held that a loan grants temporary use of money, or temporary accommodation, and that the essence of a deposit is that there must be a liability to return it to the party by whom or on whose behalf it has been made, on fulfilment of certain conditions. If these tests are applied to the facts of the case before us, it may be seen that the receipt of share application monies from the three private limited companies for allotment of shares in the assessee-company cannot be treated as receipt of loan or deposit.
As held in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) entitlement of assessee of any deduction cannot depend on the treatment accorded to such entries by the assessee. And, existence or absence of entries in the books of accounts is not determinative of such claim, but, that is depended on the provision of law that concerns such deduction.
