Navelkar Estates Developers v CIT and ITO (Mumbai HC) The main contention of Shri V. R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the reasons have not been furnished to the Petitioner/Assessee for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Assessee is not in a position to file objections to the issue on notice.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out to the case of GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others (2003) 1 SCC 72) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time so that the Assessee can file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
CIT v Alembic Glass Industries Limited (High Court of Gujarat) – The law is settled – if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs M/s H.M.T. Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)- There is no specific provision prescribing any limitation for passing the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
In course of search on July 2, 1996 in the residential premises of one Bijay Kumr Gutgutia, some papers relating to the firm, M/s. Shree Krishna Arvind Hatcheries, along with other books of accounts and a bunch of papers with identification mark BKG/5 were seized.
Faridabad Investment Company Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. In The present case, we are of the firm opinion that there was no scope of rectification in the case on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record as the Assessing Officer even in his rectified order could not find out the actual expenditure for obtaining the dividend and calculated the same on the notional basis which is not permissible.
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeches to quash and set-aside the order dated 10th August, 2010, whereby the Director of Income Tax (CIB) Rajasthan, Jaipur imposed a penalty of 20,200/- rupees on the petitioner.
Senthamarai Constructions v CIT (High Court of Madras) – Assessee filed the revised return in respect of the first two assessment years and filed the return for the first time for the last of the assessment year only after search in the Managing Partner’s residence, wherein undisclosed cash and investments were found. The conduct of the assessee, hence, assumes significance in coming forward to disclose the income of the firm, which are relatable to the investments made by the Managing Partner.
Regard being had to the language employed and the language engrafted in the circular, High Court is of the considered view that the issue raised falls in the realm of interpretation of the terms, namely – charter agreement . Factual matrix in each case has to be examined. High Court cannot examine and decide the issue in a vacuum. In praesenti , High Court is inclined to think so because the circular uses the terms – where the crew is also provided by the owners of the aircraft as in a wet lease of aircraft effective control is not transferred. Adjudication should take place first and till the adjudication is made, no coercive steps shall be taken against the members of the petitioner-association. In case members of the petitioner-association are aggrieved by any kind of adjudication, they can challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The issue pertaining to the validity of the circular is kept open.
Depreciation on the capital assets was allowable even when capital expenditure on the acquisition of the corresponding assets had already been allowed as ‘application of income’for the purpose of allowing the exemption under s 11.
CIT and Anr Vs R Hanumaiah Associates (Karnataka High Court) – No addition can be made on account of the unexplained investment on the basis of the DVO findings when the assessee satisfactorily explains that the difference was on account of the construction expenditure incurred, which was not considered by the DVO.
