High Court Calcutta held in CIT Vs Balampur Chini Mills Pvt Ltd that even if the assesse had voluntary disclosed its income by filing revised ROI though not detected by the revenue during scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3), penalty u/s 272(1)(c) would be levied.
CIT Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Individual items of centering and shuttering material used collectively in construction process constitute ‘Plant’ in terms of first proviso to section 32 (1), even if they can’t be used on stand alone basis.
No new facts or material had come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer to enable him to initiate re-assessment proceedings. All the material facts on which the Assessing Officer had based his purported reasons were available on record at the time when the original assessment order was passed.
Brief facts are that the assessee was registered as trust on 01.02.2001.Its application for registration as a charitable trust was granted on 27.12.2001. On 30.06.2002 the assessee received the IILM Undergraduate Business School,from the Ram Krishna and Sons Charitable Trust (RKSCT).
In our opinion since the assessed did not debit the amount to the Profit & Loss Account as an expenditure nor did the assessed claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessed is following the mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction under section 43B not claimed would not arise.
While executive action resulted in his passport being unjustifiably impounded, this rendered if impossible for the assessee to leave India. He virtually became an unwilling resident on Indian soil without his consent and against his will.
The only question here is whether reasons could at all be recorded after issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. And, secondly, that as the reasons were recorded after the issuance of Section 148 notice, whether the proceedings were not vitiated.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held in CIT Vs DSM Anti Infectives India ltd that the benchmark comparable which was used to compare with the comparable company that should be considered only of that year of which TP case was involved.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s DSM Anti Infectives India Ltd. that the filter used by the TPO while selecting comparable is to select companies who are using Penicillin-G as raw material irrespective of the extent of usage of the same.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pepsi Foods Private Limited vs. ACIT [W.P.(C) 1334/2015] pronounced on 19-05-2015 wherein the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’).
