Hive Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) – It is not for the Assessing Officer to dictate what the business needs of the company should be and he is only to judge the legitimacy of the business needs of the company from the point of view of a prudent businessman. The benefit derived or accruing to the company must also be considered from the angle of a prudent businessman.
CIT Vs Prem Gandhi (Delhi High Court) – In view of the amendment to section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act which has retrospective effect from 1.6.1994, Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) is duly authorised to issue warrants of search. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent herein on merits.
All Grow Finance and Investment Pvt Ltd v CIT (Delhi HC) If the debt is not advanced in the ordinary course of business, it would not qualify for deduction as a bad debt. We are of the view that the only condition laid down in second part of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act is that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions are required to be satisfied which are only applicable with regard to debt qualifying as bad debt in the first part of sub-section (2).
Whether the order of the Ld. ITAT is perverse in holding that the entire jewellery found during the search belonged to the appellant and not his wife and was undisclosed income of AY 2006- 07 without any evidence?
Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)- The words “so far as may be” in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 153A could not be interpreted that the issue of notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory in case of assessment under Section 153A. The use of the words, “so far as may be” cannot be stretched to the extent of mandatory issue of notice under Section 143(2).
Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- An inadequate enquiry on the part of the AO would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under s 263 merely because he has a different opinion on the matter. Issues, in respect of which the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), could not have been taken up by the Commissioner while exercising his powers under s 263(1).
An appeal is a substantive right. The assessee should have a full opportunity to put forth his case and should be able to get relief, if any, in accordance with. It is difficult to sustain the assessee’s negligence. However, the assessee cannot also be let scot free. Now, he has preferred this appeal and the learned advocate for the Department has to appear and contest the matter. Hence, we deem it proper to impose costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee.
CIT Vs The Maratha Mandir Co-op. Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court)- Interest income in the present case arose on account of giving advance rent to the landlord from whom premises were taken on rent for the purpose of carrying on banking business.
Sahney Kirk wood Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)- In the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the transaction was not genuine, the amounts received by an intermediary cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
Bajaj Travels Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (Delhi HC)- The appellant submitted a detailed written reply dated 17th November, 2005. The defence was that it was paying service tax as per its bona fide understanding that the service tax was to be paid on the commission retained by the appellant. It was pleaded that the matter of calculation was not clear to it. Therefore, it had been filing its service tax returns on the basis of the commission retained by it and the correct method of computing the service tax was pointed out by the visiting team of the department. Therefore, the allegation of suppression, mis-statement were wrongly attributed to it. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also referred to series of orders passed by the various Benches of CESTAT where such penalties were set aside holding that when the service tax/short-service tax was paid before the show cause notice, it was a bona fide error.
