It is not possible to accept the contention of the counsel for the assessee that interest earned even from third parties would be exempt from the charge of income-tax, in all types of transactions. The ratio therein is that, if an incorporated entity is engaged in trade, the profit from it, even if they are transactions with members, would be taxable and the principle of mutuality would have no application.
Surajmall Lalchand & Sons Vs ACIT- XI (Calcutta High Court)- In the case of CIT vs. H. P. State Forest Corporation Ltd (supra), a Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court was considering a case where the accounts of the assessee, a State Government Corporation, not having been audited by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Assessing Officer treated the assessee’s return as a non est and passed order of assessment under Section 144 of the Act.
CIT Vs Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules – Additional evidence should be allowed to be submitted at the Tribunal to prove benefit received by receipt of management services by the Assessee. AO denied deduction of management services charges alleging that the same didn’t provide benefits to the recipient of services.
CIT Vs M/s Mono flex India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- Whether when the property, which was auctioned by the TRO for recovery of tax, is a leased property to the defaulter under a perpetual lease agreement, the right in the said property can only be transferred after payment of the unearned increase payable to the lessor of the property as was payable under the lease agreement
Cine max India Limited Vs Union Of India & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)- While upholding Sec.65[105][zzzz] of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Sec.75[5][h] and Sec.76 of the Finance Act, 2010, we hold that the provision of Sec. 65[105][zzzz] introducing service tax is not attracted if
ITO Vs M/s Asian Paints Ltd (Mumbai High Court)- Once the authorised agent of the Central Government collects the tax by debiting the bank account of the assessee, the payment of tax to the Central Government would be complete. The fact that there is delay on the part of the authorized agent to credit that amount to the account of the Central Government, it cannot be said that the payment of tax is not made by the assessee, till the amount of tax is credited to the account of the Central Government. For calculating interest under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act the relevant date is the date of payment of tax and not the date on which the amount of tax collected is credited to the account of the Central Government by the agent of the Central Government.
A notice under section 158BC cannot be equated with that of notice under section 148. A notice under section 158BC provides for a procedure to be adopted for block assessment under which, the Assessing Officer shall serve a notice requiring the assessee to furnish his return within such time not being less than 15 days but not more than 45 days as specified in the notice. Therefore, the time to be granted to the assessee in terms of section 158BC is a minimum of 15 days and a maximum of 45 days.
Madras High Court ruling on the applicability of Provident Fund (PF) contribution on certain allowances. Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Madras High Court)- The Madras High Court in aforesaid case has held that certain allowances such as conveyance, educational allowances, food concession, medical allowance, special holidays, night shift incentive, city compensatory allowances etc. should be treated as part of basic wages under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’.) and accordingly, provident fund contributions should be remitted on such allowances.
CIT Vs DCM Limited (Delhi High Court)- Whether a mere proposal for enhancement of property tax would result in crystallisation of liability qua that portion of rate able value which was sought to be enhanced. There can be no dispute that liability does not cease to exist merely because the quantification of the liability is deferred.
If two views are possible than Assessing Officers should take the one favourable to the Assessee and penalty for concealment cannot be levied. CIT Vs Mahavir Irrigation Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- In this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false.
