Punjab & Haryana High Court held in Alexandera School Vs CIT, Amritsar that if an educational institute had been run by a particular section of community then registration u/s 12AA could not be denied provided it was running to benefit all sections of society.
In the present case it appears that the Commissioner has assumed that in respect of all the clearances, the appellant has collected Excise Duty. If the department makes the allegation that the appellant had collected money representing Excise Duty
The present case is related to search & seizure action carried out in case of Sh. S.K. Gupta (‘third party’) in respect of companies and other business entities which were controlled by him or owned by him or different individuals connected with him.
However, where the fundamental transaction is shown to be a sham transaction, the same cannot necessarily be accepted as genuine merely because a broker’s confirmation and invoices have been produced. Given the facts of this case, the decisions referred to by CIT(A)
Mistake apparent on the record u/s 154 must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions.
The petitioner by letter dated 17th November, 2011 had disclosed a foreign bank account which existed with the HSBC Private Bank, Geneva, Switzerland to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II). The peak amount lying in the said account during the year ending 31st March, 2007 was around US$ 1.3 million.
Whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Om Prakash Khaitan held that In the absence of change in system of accounting consistently followed by the assessee and accepted by the department, the department cannot take different stand for the subsequent years.
Delhi High Court in the case of Maithon Power Ltd. vs. CIT held that The expenditure incurred to set up operations forms the part of capital work in progress and thus, the subsequent reimbursement of any part thereof would be a capital receipt which will get reduced from the amount capitalized under the capital WIP.
In the case of CIT vs M/s.Motherson Auto P. Ltd, Delhi High Court held that the monopoly enjoyed by the assessee in respect of the product manufactured, the continuous functioning, the large volume of orders at hand when the collaboration transaction took place, were sufficient basis for valuation.
