Chitranjan Jaiswal v CIT and Anr. – The order dated 9th February, 1996 clearly reveals that after initiation of the proceeding under section 147/148 of the Act of 1961, the Assessing Authority at its own has not dropped the proceeding upon satisfaction of his own without the help of the return. Admittedly, there was no regular assessment for the assessee of the year 1992-93 and petitioner was directed as well as required to submit the return in response to the notice under section 147/148 read with section 142 of the Act of 1961 and he duly submitted that return.
M/s Kone Elevator India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Madras High Court) – As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, once the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that the taxable amount has escaped assessment, two conditions were required to be satisfied on the basis of the materials placed before him. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of the first condition alone is suffice. In other words if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that certain income assessable to tax has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. Hence, we are not able to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
Geofin Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Learned counsel for the petitioner Geofin Investment (P) Limited, submits that the tribunal had erred in dismissing the application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) as the tribunal in its order dated 13th October, 2010, had referred to and relied upon decision of another ITAT Bench which had not not been cited at the time of hearing. He submits that the order passed by the tribunal dated 13th October, 2010 under Section 254(1) of the Act, should have been recalled. Hoourable High Court do not find any merit in the said contention. Under Section 254(2), a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 383 of 2009, 987 of 2010, 1242 of 2010 and 1247 of 2010) held that once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has accepted a royalty payment to be at arm’s length, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not disallow the expenditure by applying Section 37 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The High Court further observed under Section 37 of the Act the AO had powers only to examine whether the expenditure claimed has been actually expended and was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, and not its reasonableness, which lies solely in the domain of the businessman.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd ( ITA no 549 of 2011) held that transfer of intangible assets with right to carry on business was taxable as capital gains and not as business income.
CIT v Atma Ram Tulsyan and Others (Allahabad High Court) – AO was of the view that the possibility of appreciation in the price of shares of lesser known companies in such short period appears to be remote. On this premise, the benefit of capital gains was denied. Evidently, in the absence of any contrary material, it is but obvious that the assessment order was framed on presumptions and assumptions.
CIT vs. Safetag International India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- In the present case, the assessee did not ask for these ‘reasons to believe’. The assessee rather participated in the reassessment proceedings. When the reassessment orders were passed and the assessee felt aggrieved there against, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). In this appeal, he challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, which was the course of action available to the assessee.
CIT Versus Sadhu Forging Ltd (Delhi HC) – Assessee in giving heat treatment for which it had earned labour charges and job-work charges, it can thus be said that the appellant had done a process on the raw material which was nothing but a part and parcel of the manufacturing process of the industrial undertaking. These receipts cannot be said to be independent income of the manufacturing activities of the undertakings of the assessee and thus could not be excluded from the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IB. These were gains derived from industrial undertakings and so entitled for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IB. There cannot be any two opinions that manufacturing activity of the type of material being undertaken by the assessee would also generate scrap in the process of manufacturing. The receipts of sale of scrap being part and parcel of the activity and being proximate thereto would also be within the ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deducting under Section 80IB.
CIT Versus Narayan Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC)- The Tribunal relied upon the case of ITO v. Smt. Darshan Kaur of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribuanl and also the case titled CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries, 180 ITR 319 and CIT v. M.P. Iron Traders 189 CTR 154, holding that the assumption of jurisdiction to frame the assessment by invoking Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was not justifiable in this case and consequently quashed the assessment framed under Section 143(3)/147. It is against this impugned order that the appeal has been preferred by Revenue. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in ITA No. 148/2008 titled as Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, pronounced today, i.e., 3rd June, 2011 by this Court.
National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. Versus CIT (DELHI HC)- In fact the liability on account of interest was to be deductable only when it gets crystallized into a certain liability and that took place only on this court passing a decree and awarding interest after the date of the award till the date of realization. Thus, we are of the view that the liability did not crystallize in the three assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99,but only came to be crystallized in the year 2000-2001, when this court passed decree on 28th January, 2000 and, therefore, the assessee could not claim deduction for the same in the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. We thus, answer question in affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and consequently dismissed the appeal.
