CIT Vs Mohair Investment & Trading Co (Delhi High Court)- From a plain reading of the relevant Sections it is clear that the period of six months provided for imposition of penalty under Section 275(1)(a) starts running after the successive appeals from an assessment order has been finally decided by the CIT(A) or the ITAT as the case may be whichever period expires later. The proviso to section 275(1)(a) has only had the effect of extending the period of imposing penalty from six months to one year within the receipt of the order of the Commissioner after 1st June, 2003.
Sood Bhandari & Co. Vs. CBDT (P & H HC)- Section 40(b)(ii ) contemplates the authorization of remuneration or interest. The authorization does not mean an agreement to pay, but to quantify the amount of salary or the rate of interest payable to the partners. If the said aspects are not determined prior to the financial year, the same are capable of adjustment at the end of the financial year keeping in view the profits earned with a view to increase expenditure and reduce income.
CIT Vs M/s National Travel Services (Delhi High Court)- When Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act enacts a deeming provision, it has to be strictly construed. At the same time, it is also trite that such a deeming provision has to be taken to its logical conclusion. If the partnership firm which has purchased the shares is not treated as shareholder merely because the shares were purchased in the name of the partners, that too because of the legal compulsion that shares could not be allotted to the said partnership firm which is a non legal entity, it would be impossible for such a condition to be fulfilled.
Read the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal on Section 54 claim under the Income Tax Act. Legal insights provided.
Dalmia Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- It is well settled that audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of this court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC), has held as under (at page 393) :’In the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment.
CIT Vs Splender Construction (Delhi High Court)- When the land which was held as stock in trade for several years is converted into investment just before the sale, it can be said that the assessee did so to pay lesser taxes, and it amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars, warring levy of penalty . If Merits Successively Rejected, Issue “Not Debatable.
CIT Vs ABC Bearing Limited (Bombay High Court)- The taxpayer was engaged in the business of advancing loans. Interest received from inter-corporate deposits was offered to tax as business income and accepted by the Assessing Officer in earlier years.
V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. UOI (P & H HC)- The date of receipt of notice by the addressee is not relevant to determine, as to whether the notice has been issued within the prescribed period of limitation. The expression serve means the date of issue of notice. The date of receipt of notice cannot be left to be undetermined dependent upon the will of the addressee. Therefore, to bring certainly and to avoid attempts of the addressee to evade the process of receipt of notice, the purpose of the statute will be better served, if the date of issue of notice is considered as compliance of the requirement of proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act. In fact that is the only conclusion that can be arrived at to the expression ‘serve’ appearing in Section 143(2) of the Act.
In the dictionary clause in Section 65(90A), while defining renting of immovable property, it has been stated that it includes renting, letting, leasing, licencing or other similar arrangements for immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce.
ICAI & ANR. Vs DGIT (EXEMPTIONS) (Delhi High Court)- Even if the profits earned are used for charitable purposes, but fee, cess or consideration is charged by a person for carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering of any service in addition to any trade, commerce or business, an institution will not be regarded as established for charitable purpose/activity (it would be covered under the proviso and the bar/prohibition will apply)
