Indore Mahavidyalaya versus National Council for Teachers Education(Delhi HC)- While the learned Single Judge noticed that the office of the respondent falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, yet he declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that on three previous occasions – including when the grievance arose vis-à-vis a previous order of the Appellate Committee, the writ petitioner approached the most convenient forum, i.e. the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was not appropriate to entertain this writ petition in Delhi. Apart from the fact that the exercise of jurisdiction in such cases is not compulsive, discretion is also exercised having regard to the fact-circumstance in each case. In the present case, the learned Single Judge clearly adopted the forum inconvenien approach in declining to exercise jurisdiction (Ref. Kusum Ingots & Alloys v.Union of India 2004 (6) SCC 254).
M/s IVL India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) – – Assessee while working out the eligible deduction did not exclude 90% of the income received by way of consultancy charges which is to be specifically excluded by virtue of mandatory provision contained in Explanation (d) of Section 80HHE of the Act. In fact, since there is an omission to apply the statutory provision in the working out of eligible deduction of profit on export of software, the assessment could even be rectified through rectification proceedings under Section 154. In any case when the mandatory provision is not followed leading to evasion of tax by way of excess relief granted to the assessee, the remedy open to the officer is to revise the assessment by invoking powers under Section 147.
M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court – Full Bench) The three-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court in this case was considering the issue of whether it would have jurisdiction over a case whose cause of action arose from an order delivered by an appellate authority which is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. After considering several case laws on the subject, the Court came to the conclusion that the matter would have to be decided by a larger bench of the High Court
Merely because the assessee had been permitted to establish a new industrial undertaking for the manufacture of computer software as 100% EOU under the STP scheme was itself not enough to record a finding that the said unit had in fact been established and was entitled to claim the exemption under s 10B — as held by Delhi High Court in CIT v Modi Xerox — In favour of Revenue.
Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT v. Cargill Global Trading (I) (P) Limited on the issue of whether discounting charges paid to a non-resident on discounting of bills of exchange (BEs) can be characterized as ‘interest’, liable for withholding held that the discounting charges are not in the nature of ‘interest’ since they are not payable in respect of money borrowed or debt incurred by the Taxpayer.
Madras High Court has recently held in the case of CIT v R. Rajgopal [TS-222-HC-2011 (MAD)] that, as the salary was paid directly by the Indian subsidiary company, conditions of Article 16(2)(b) of the Indo-UK Treaty was not fulfilled. Accordingly, the taxpayer was not entitled to claim short stay exemption under Article 16(2) of the India-UK Treaty.
Reliance in this connection can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Suresh Kumar Bansal vs UOI [W.P.(C) 2235/2011] wherein levy of Service Tax on the value of flats sold during construction stage has been held unconstitutional, if such value includes the value of Land.
Shanti Bhushan vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) -Delhi High Court has disallowed the income tax deduction for expenses incurred on heart surgery by eminent lawyer Mr. Shanti Bhushan. It was argued by Mr. Bhushan that he suffered a heart attack due to professional work and the expenditure incurred by him on a heart operation must be deductible under Section 31 of the Income Tax (I-T) Act.
CIT v Radhey Shyam Bansal and Others (Delhi HC) In the instant case, the referring AO has not recorded satisfaction that any undisclosed income belongs to the assessee. In the letter/communication dated 15 July 2003 by the referring AO to the AO of the assessee, there is no allegation that the assessee was provided with accommodation book entries or the amounts belong to the respondent-assessee. Book entries were provided to third parties. Though the referring AO wrote a letter to the assessee’s AO informing him that the assessee was providing bogus accommodation book entries and the quantum of transactions was given as per the Annexures, the Annexures were missing from the file. Thus, the appellant-revenue has not discharged the onus that there was valid satisfaction as required under s 158 BD. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is the prerequisite of “satisfaction” as engrafted under s 158B for the purpose of the initiation of the block assessment proceeding is non-existent or absent.
The expenditure is to be fully allowed in the year in which the same is incurred provided it fulfills the test laid down under s 37, and only in exceptional cases can the expenditure be allowed to be spread over, that too, when the assessee chooses to do so as held by Delhi High Court in CIT v Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd — In favour of : The Assessee ; ITA Nos. 1820, 1974/2010 and 5/2011.
