The challenge in this proceeding is to a notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik on 30 April, 2009 seeking to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The dispute in this case relates to assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. On 30 April 2001, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) constituted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the purchase and sale of shares by the petitioner was in the ordinary course of its business and the income which resulted from this
ITAT was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 63,46,000 paid by the assessee for acquiring technical know-how was allowable as revenue expenditure? The Tribunal was justified in its opinion that the payment made in question was allowable as revenue expenditure and not as capital expenditure allowable for deprecation under Section 32 of the Act .
Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that on 14th September, 2004, a survey under Section 133A of the Act was conducted out on the respondent-assessee?s business premises. During the course of survey, the tax officials noticed some discrepancies in stock and cash in hand. During the said survey, respondent-assessee surrendered an amount of ` 99,50,000/- and offered the same for the purposes of taxation. The additional income offered included a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- on account of excess stock found during the course of survey and offered by one of the partners of the respondent-assessee as additional income.
The respondent can reverse the CENVAT credit availed on capital goods treating it as undesirable credit to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1962, and pay duty from PLA otherwise payable after exhausting CENVAT Credit balance thereby claiming refund of the same under Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001.
CIT Vs. Saranapal Singh (HUF) (Punjab & Haryana Court)- In the instant case, it was held that where the assessee had received a certain amount as short term loan and was duly repaid the said amount could not be treated as income of assessee under section 56(2)(v) of the Act.
The Bombay High Court has directed the income tax commissioner to reconsider the applications of Bollywood actor Danny Denzongpa alias Tshering Pintso for tax exemptions on dividends and interests since 1997-98 under section 10(26AAA) as incorporated in the Finance Act, which entitled tax exemptions to Sikkimese nationals on dividends and interest on securities. A division bench of the high court has set aside the order passed by the income-tax commissioner rejecting nine applications filed by Denzongpa seeking the exemptions as per the amendment to the Finance Act in 2008.
In this judgement, after hearing the matter, vide its order dated 8 September, 2010 running into 196 pages, the HC has dismissed the writ petition filed by VIH, holding that the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Authorities under section 201 of the Act cannot be held to lack jurisdiction.
Bhagwan Sri Rama Viraj man & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors. The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
The assessee, a co-op bank, filed a return for AY 2001-02 showing a loss of Rs. 15.94 crores. As the return was belated, the assessee filed an application u/s 119(2)(b) with the CBDT requesting condonation of delay and for being allowed carry forward of loss. The principal ground on which condonation was sought was that there was a delay in appointment of the statutory auditor by the Registrar and a consequent delay in preparing the s. 44AB tax audit report. The CBDT rejected the application on the ground that the reasons were general in nature and there were no exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the assessee to file the return. It was also stated that the assessee was operating for several years and was aware of its obligation to get the accounts audited and to file the return within the due date. The assessee challenged the rejection of the application. HELD upholding the challenge: (i) The power to appoint statutory auditors is that of the Central Registrar and that was done on 3.9.2001. The Registrar appointed Chartered Accountants to be statutory auditors in place of the Departmental Auditors. This change was made in respect of all societies. Therefore, the assessee cannot be blamed for the delay in carrying out its audit as the same was beyond its control. The contention of the Revenue that the departmental auditors had started the audit in the year 2000 and it was for the assessee to get the audit expedited cannot be accepted. Though the departmental auditors might have started the audit, it appears that pursuant to the said policy decision that was taken, the departmental auditors were replaced by the Chartered Accountants to be the statutory auditors. Therefore, the reason given for delay deserves to be accepted; (ii) It is well settled that in matters of condonation of delay a highly pedantic approach should be eschewed and a justice oriented approach should be adopted and a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities.
