Penalty under s 271FA – Failure to file annual information return — The penalty under s 271FA is leviable if the assessee fails to respond to the notice for failure of filing annual information return — as held by Gujrat High Court in Patan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd v DIT(CIB); Special Civil Application No. 14675 of 2010, 22 April 2011
Shree Bhagawathy Textiles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT – If the assessee has made a claim of deduction from this profit not enumerated in the clauses (i) to (ix) covered by Explanation to section 115JA, the assessment so completed based on the profit taken from the profit and loss account appropriation account submitted by the assesseee happens to be an apparent mistake which could having satisfied on the factual mistake committed by the assessing officer in the original assesment, rightly upheld the revised assessment issued under section 154 by reversing their earlier order.
S E Investments Limited Vs Union of India and Others- The Delhi High Court held that there is no provision for charging stamp duty on the increase in authorized stamp duty in Stamp Act. A statute authorizing the levy of stamp duty is in the nature of a fiscal statute, hence stamp duty cannot be levied except by the authority of law. The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of AV Fernandez vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1957 SC 657) and
Exchange traded derivative transactions carried on by the assessee during AY 2003-04 are speculative transactions covered under Section 43(5) of the Act and the loss incurred in those transactions are liable to be treated as speculative loss and not business loss. We further hold that clause (d) inserted to the proviso to Section 43(5) with effect from 1/4/2006 is prospective in nature and the ITAT was in error in holding that clause (d) to the proviso to Section 43(5) applied retrospectively so as to apply to the transactions carried on by the assessee during AY 2003-04. CIT vs. Bharat R. Ruia (Bombay High Court)
The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of goods and availed Cenvat credit on Inputs/Capital goods/Input services under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. During the course of audit it was found that the assessee had availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,45,460/- for the service tax paid by the assessee on the transportation charges incurred by them towards the outward transportation of goods cleared by them at their factory gate.
Pannalal Kejriwal Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Whether in the facts of the present case the transactions relating to the shares of ITC Ltd. and Tata Tea Ltd. on behalf of the two partners where the assessee-firm apparently acted as broker could be said to be the transaction on behalf of the assessee-firm itself and the profit of the two partners can be added to the income of the assessee-firm.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited. vs Sami Khatib Of Mumbai (Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited). A division bench of the Bombay high court last week dismissed the appeal of Cadila Pharmaceuticals against the judgement of a single judge bench restraining Cadila from manufacturing, marketing or exporting medicinal preparations under the trade mark “Hb TONE”/ “HB TONE” or any other mark deceptively similar to the trademarks of another company, Medley Pharmaceuticals, namely “ARBITONE”, “RB TONE” or “HB RON”. The complaint was that Cadila was “passing off” the products with similar names.
The assessee, hired Millers and Rollers, for the purpose of carrying out his road contract works. According to the revenue, since in the case on hand, the hire charges in respect of both the Millers and Rollers hired by the assessee contained a portion of labour charges incurred by the respective owners of the concerned vehicles/machineries towards operation of the respective vehicles/machineries along with labour and consequently, the relevant provision applicable for effecting TDS was section 194C and not 194-I of the Income Tax Act.
Jayant Agro Chemicals Ltd v ITO and Others – As per the proviso to s 147 of the Act, the assessment can be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, only if there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In the present case, the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond the period of four years and there is no material on record to suggest that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. From the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, it cannot even remotely be said that there is failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Presumption on the part of the AO that the assessee has failed to achieve 82% value addition is not even case of the licensing authority who has imposed the condition regarding value addition. The notice impugned in the petition for reopening of the assessment cannot be sustained.
Section 65(53a) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with section 4 of the Karnataka VAT Act, 2003 – Information Technology Service – April, 2009 to March, 2010 – Assessee entered into agreements with its clients for development of software – Asses see provided its staff who were well-trained in field and who would develop software according to specification of customer – In terms of agreement even before development of software assessee had given up all rights and claims of software to be developed and had expressly agreed that such a software which may come into existence at end of contract period was absolute property of customer
