Stewart Holl (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- Court held that the different brands of tea which were mixed by the assessee in Nilgiri’s case for the purpose of producing a tea mixture of a different kind and quality according to the formula evolved by them, there was plainly and indubitably processing of different brands of tea, because these brands of tea experienced, as a result of mixing, qualitative change, in that the tea mixture which came into existence was of different quality and flavour than the different brands of tea which went into the mixture.
Added In Income Tax Case Laws CIT v Heera Construction Co Pvt Ltd (High Court of Kerala) – In view of the application of the 2nd proviso, the assessee is not entitled to complete immunity from payment of penalty on the undisclosed income returned by them under clause (a) of section 158BC, not only because of their failure to comply with the provisions of clauses (i) to (iv) of the 1st proviso but by virtue of the addition made in the assessment of substantial amount of undisclosed income by which the assessee forfeits the benefit of the 1st proviso in regard to immunity from penalty on the tax payable on undisclosed income returned.
Titanor Components Ltd Vs ACIT, Panaji -(High Court of Bombay at Goa) – The power conferred by Section 147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Indeed, where the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts, it is not open for the AO to re-open the assessment on the ground that there is a mistake in assessment. Moreover, it is necessary for the AO to first observe whether there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and having observed that there is such a failure to proceed under Section 147. It must follow that where the AO does not record such a failure he would not be entitled to proceed under Section 147.
CIT v Gujarat Safai Kamdar Vikas Nigam (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) – It was a scheme envisaged for implementation of certain Government programmes in particular, to uplift the living condition of manual scavengers and other Safai Kamdars involved in similar activities. Though exact words may not have been used that the funds made available are directed to form the corpus of the Corporation and to be used for such purpose, the entire purport of the scheme has to be gathered from the reading of the scheme as a whole. If so done, it leaves no doubt in our mind that the funds were made available to the Corporation for implementing the scheme in a particular manner. The assessee Corporation was not th sole trustee. The Scheduled Caste Development Board was also liable for implementation of the scheme to be supervised by a Committee headed by the Deputy Minister which included other Government officials. To our mind, the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the grant in question fulfills the requirement of section 11(d)(1) read with section 12(1) of the Act. In the result, tax appeal is dismissed.
CIT Vs H.P. Marketing Board (Himachal High Court)- Marketing board is not a local authority within the meaning of section 10(20) prior to the amendment made in section 10(20) when the word `local authority’ was not defined in the Income tax Act and the definition of `local authority’ as defined in section 3(31) of the General Clause Act was applicable.
Bela Juneja v CIT (Delhi High Court) – Additions under s 69 was justified since finding of facts has been arrived by lower authorities that assessee had made unexplained investment and there was huge difference between agreed price for purchase of property and price registered in sale deed and no perversity has been shown in such findings. Coming to the material available on record, enough evidence was found by the lower authorities pertaining to assessee from the premises in which she was living that the above payment in respect of property was made by her. The same has neither been accounted for nor assessee has given any satisfactory reply about the investment in question.
CIT vs. Gopal Purohit – (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court vide order dated 15.11.2010 dismissed the Department’s Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom). The Tribunal has achieved a pure finding of fact that the assessee was engaged in two different types of transactions. The first set of transactions involved investment in shares. The second set of transactions involved dealing in shares for the purpose of business. The tribunal has correctly applied the principle of law in accepting the position that it is open to an assessee maintaining two separate portfolios: one relating to investment in shares and another relating to business activities involving dealing in shares. The tribunal held that delivery based transactions in the present case should be treated as those in the nature of investment transactions, and the profit received thereof should be treated either as short-term or, as the case may be, long-term capital gain, depending on the period of holding.
M/s. PCBL Industrial Ltd. Vs. CIT, Kolkata & Anr. (High Court of Calcutta)- Whether the Explanation to section 73 which creates a legal fiction by which the purchase and sale of shares specified in the said Explanation which is specifically used for the purpose of section 73 as deemed speculation business can be applied to sections 70, 71 and 72 and in determining the gross total income the said Explanation to section 73 can at all be applied while considering the set off of loss under sections 70 and 71 and carry forward of such loss under sections 70 and 71 and carry forward of such loss under Section 72 of the Act? HELD- In favour of the assessee
Kerala High Court has vide its order dated 16.06.2011 granted interim stay against any coercive steps of recovery of service tax or against any proceedings for imposing penalty for a period of two months on Restaurant and short term accommodation service.
CIT v Ashok Kumar Arora (Delhi High Court) Whether the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions which were made by the AO based upon documents/evidence detected during the course of operations u/s 132 of the Act and which was confronted to the assessee by way of recording of statement under the provision of 132(4) of the Act and on the basis of confessional statement u/s 132(4) of the Act given by the assessee at the point of search especially in view of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 17
