CIT Vs. Kas Movie Pvt. Ltd (Delhi HC) – For the purpose of claiming benefit under Section 80HHF of the Act, ownership of goods is not essential as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sea Pearl Industries and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 247 ITR 578. Thus, when two views were possible and the assessee made the claim on the basis of advice of the consultants, it was not a case where the penalty should have been imposed.
CIT vs. Moderate Leasing & Capital Services Ltd. (Delhi HC) – The Court, on the facts of the case held that where two portfolios are maintained by the assessee, i.e., investment portfolio and stock in trade, then, if the shares sold during the particular year pertains to investment portfolio and there happens to be loss, then such loss would be capital loss; and not the revenue loss.
In view of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Co. Appl. 1633/2011 in Co. Pet. No. 265/1998 as well as the fact that sale deeds in the present applications have been executed and some payments have been paid only after appointment of Provisional Liquidator, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision rendered by the One Man Committee. It is pertinent to mention that the sale deeds have been executed contrary to a specific injunction order dated 05th June, 1998 and the payments made by the applicants after the appointment of Provisional Liquidator have not been received by the Official Liquidator. Further, no transparent procedure of sale/auction has been followed as is normally done in cases after appointment of Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that even though the applicants are entitled in law to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, yet keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief under the said Section.
CIT vs. Manish Build Well Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)-In the present case, the CIT (A) has observed that the additional evidence should be admitted because the assessee was prevented by adducing them before the assessing officer. This observation takes care of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A. The observation of the CIT (A) also takes care of sub-rule (2) under which he is required to record his reasons for admitting the additional evidence. Thus, the requirement of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 46A have been complied with.
Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Even for the pre-Rule8D period, whenever the issue of section 14A arises before an Assessing Officer, he has, first of all, to ascertain the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act. Even where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incuured in relation to income which does not form part of total income, the assessing officer will have to verify the correcteness of such claim.
Atma Ram Properties Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) – In the present case, as already noticed, the Income-tax Officer, Azamgarh, subsequent to the completion of the original assessment proceedings, on making an enquiry from the jurisdictional Income-tax Officer at Calcutta, learnt that the Calcutta company from whom the assessee claimed to have borrowed the loan of Rs. 50,000 in cash had not really lent any money but only its name to cover up a bogus transaction and, after recording his satisfaction as required by the provisions of section 147 of the Act, proposed to reopen the assessment proceedings.
CIT vs. Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt Ltd (Bombay High Court) – under Section 80IB(2)(iv) what is relevant is the employment of ten or more workers and not the mode and the manner in which the said workers are employed by the assessee. In other words, irrespective of the terms of employment, condition of Section 80IB(2)(iv) would stand fulfilled if the assessee in aggregate employs ten or more workers in its manufacturing activity. The fact that the employer – employee relationship between the workers employed by the assessee differs cannot be a ground to deny deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, so long as the workers employed by the assessee in aggregate exceed ten in number.
Champion Photostat Industrial Corporation Vs UOI (P&H High Court) – Section 46 of the Act deals with the submission of Bill of Entry by an importer. There is no condition in the said Section, which prohibits the submission of Bill of Entry by an importer himself or that the importer has to have some educational qualification. It is only Section 146 of the Act, which deals with the clearing with the intervention of the Customs House Agents. Since such agents have to act for others, certain qualifications have been fixed in the regulations framed to regulate their working and also by Public Notice.
We are of opinion that there is ample power under section 5A of the State Act enabling the Chief Commissioner to specify the single point at which tax may be levied in a series of sales. This can, however, be done by him only by a notification in the Official Gazette. No such notification has been placed before us which could relate to the assessment year under consideration.
Vipul Medcorp TPA Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBDT (Delhi High Court)-The High Court held that payments made by the insurance company or the TPAs could be in the nature of business expenditure as per accounts/books maintained by them. However, tax has to be deducted under Section 194J of the Act if the payment is made to a resident person towards fees for professional services. Further, the nature of payment in the hands of the payee/recipient is relevant and that determines whether tax needs to be deducted or not. Section 194J of the Act does not specify that the payer must have availed and taken benefit of the professional services.
