CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Simpson & Co. (Madras High Court)- There must be a nexus between the material at the hands of the Officer and formation of belief that there was escapement of wealth from assessment on account of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts. In the absence of any nexus or any one of the requirements, the reassessment proceedings could not be upheld as one falling under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act.
B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others Vs. DDIT (Uttarakhand High Court)- The combined effect of the provisions of Section 44BB, 44DA and 115A of the Act will not have a bearing to the cases in hand in as much as the Explanatory Note to the Finance Bill, 2010 clearly indicates that the amendments proposed in Section 44BB and 44DA of the Act would take effect from 1st April, 2011 and would apply in relation to the assessment year 2011-2012 and subsequent years. The amendment is prospective in nature and would not apply to the cases in hand which is of the earlier assessment years.
Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi (Delhi High Court)- Payment made by the assessee on settlement of dispute with a company of USA being neither a fine or a penalty for a proved offence nor an amount of Compensation of an offence but is merely a sum in settlement of an action charging the assessee was denied and not proved the same cannot be rendered to be inadmissible deduction while determining the assessee’s income from business.
CIT Vs K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)- Counsel for the Revenue could not point as to how interest on borrowed funds to the extent of Rs.2.79 crores was attributable to earning dividend income which are exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act (as it then stood). Therefore, in the facts of the present case, in the absence of any material or basis to hold that the interest expenditure directly or indirectly was attributable for earning the dividend income, the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in deleting the disallowance of interest made under Section 14A of the Act cannot be faulted.
M/s Sundaram Fasteners Ltd Vs CIT (Madras High Court)- As far as placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) reported in [2003] 262 ITR 278 is concerned, we do not find, the said decision, in any manner, goes against the case of the assessee. The Unit at Krishnapuram is stated to be the only unit having hot forging machine. It is stated that the assessee, based at Krishnapuram, received bolts and nuts from Padi, manufactured using cold forging. The Krishnapuram unit completes hot forging and after the process comes to Padi where there is further value addition and after assembling nuts and bolts, they are marketed.
CIT, Chennai Vs A R Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)- The Tribunal accepted the case of the assessee based on the letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, that the windmill was commissioned on 30.09.1995.
CIT, Mumbai Vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.- (Bombay High Court)- The object of inserting Section 10(23AAB) as per the Board Circular No. 762 dated 18th February 1998 was to enable the assessee to offer attractive terms to the contributors.
CIT Vs M/s Lakshmi Hospital (High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulum)- In this case also assessee conceded that the unaccounted receipts were collected for payment to doctors attending to patients in the hospital. What we notice is that the department has not made any effort to confront the doctors with the unaccounted payments stated to have been made to them by the hospital which engaged them.
CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee accepts the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted in such a case.
Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)- When the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings and the information received is extremely scanty and vague, and the material based on which the proceedings are initiated does not indicate escapement of income, the AO will have no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148.
