CIT Vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. (Ahmedabad High Court) – Factually, it found huge funds were available without any interest liability with the assessee and that there was no evidence to hold that the borrowed money was utilized for the purpose of advance to the sister concern. All these aspects cumulatively led the Tribunal to hold that the disallowance made only on the ground that advances were given out of the borrowed funds, holding the assessee ineligible for allowance of interest by the Assessing Officer of the sum of Rs.18.66 lacs was not sustainable.
The Assessing Officer supplied reasons he had recorded for reopening the assessment, which read as under:- “The assessee company filed its return of income on 22.12.2006, declaring total income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) was finalized on 18.06.2008 determining the taxable income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. It is seen that the assessee company had made payment of Rs.21,60,399/- in Foreign Company for purchase of raw materials. However, neither did the company deduct TDS on this amount nor any certificate obtain from the concerned Assessing Officer for non-deduction of TDS. Prasad Koch Technik Tech Pvt Ltd Vs. Versus ACIT (Ahmedabad High Court)
CIT Vs. Harinder Sachdev (Delhi HC) – A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 1 (Del.) has held that service of notice within the time as stipulated in the proviso to Section 143(2) is mandatory. In case service is not effected within the time stipulated in the proviso, this would render the assessment void. The aforesaid decision in the case of Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (supra) has been followed in CIT Vs. Vardhman Estates P. Ltd., [2006] 287 ITR 368 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Bhan Textiles P. Ltd., [2006] 287 ITR 370 (Del.).
R. K. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)- The matter is remanded back to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the petitioner could be disclosed. If the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act.
Udyog Bharati Vs ITO (Ahmedabad High Court)- In the first place it was not necessary for the appellant to file a cross-objection. As already noted, the assessee had raised an alternative contention of exemption under Section 11 of the Act before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in view of his opinion that the benefit of Section 10(23) of the Act is required to be granted, did not examine this alternative contention on merits. In that view of the matter, when the Revenue had carried the CIT(A)’s order before the Tribunal, it was open for the assessee to support the order on all grounds including those which may not have been accepted or examined by the CIT(A). For this purpose, cross-objection was not necessary. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal not entertaining such cross-objection on the ground of delay, to our mind, would not be fatal to the assessee’s contention. It is clarified that if the Revenue’s appeal before the Court is entertained further, it would be open for the assessee to support the orders in its favour on all grounds.
CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (Delhi HC)- Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife‟s name was also included additionally. Such inclusion of the name of the wife for the above-stated peculiar factual reason should not stand in the way of the deduction legitimately accruing to the assessee.
DIT Vs. BBC Worldwise Ltd. (Delhi HC)- Bombay High Court in Set Satellite (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that if correct ALP is applied and paid, nothing further rwould be left to be taxed in the hands of the foreign enterprise. In the said case, Morgan Stanley (supra) as well as Circular No.23 issued by the CBDT was taken into consideration. The Court was also pleased to record that the commission paid to the agent was 15% services performed by the assessee‘s agent in India was in line with the existing industry standards in India at the prevalent time.
CIT Vs. Amadeus India Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) – Role of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) is limited to determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in relation to the international transaction(s) referred to him by the Assessing Officer (AO). The TPO, on a suo moto basis, cannot take cognizance of any other international transaction not specifically referred to him by the AO.
Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Lal Singh And Another (Allahabad High Court) – Assessment of giving precedence to cases on the facts and circumstances involved is better judged by the Court where the matter is pending so that there can be uniformity in disposal of cases by the Court below without giving precedence to a case which is not more urgent over other urgent cases. Such assessment can be made by the Court concerned and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the petitioner should file an appropriate application before the Court concerned in the case itself praying for expeditious disposal and give reasons for the same.
In the instant case, the assessee is a Co-operative Bank. Clause 5 of sub-section (3) of Section 194A expressly exempts the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Co-operative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By misconstruing this provision they also did not deduct tax from the interest payable to non-members.
