Bhartia Industries Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkutta HC) – The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act questioning the allowance of the said payments made on account of VRS by the Assessing Officer and an order under Section 263 of the Act dated March 4, 2003 was passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. In the said order the Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer was bound by the Circular dated January 23, 2001 issued by the Board as to the eligibility of deduction of such payment on account of VRS and he should not have allowed such payment. The Commissioner set aside the entire assessment for being made de novo and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in the light of the said Circular of the Board.
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of judgement dated 15/6/2011 delivered by Honourable Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the matter of EPFO Vs. Roll well Forge Ltd. on the issue of initiating recovery action before expiry of limitation period of appeal prescribed under Sec.7-1 of the Act. While overturning the decision of Single Bench
GKW Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Only profit on the sale of the licence should be chargeable to tax under s 28(iiia) and not the profit which may come in the future on the sale of the licence.
The material on record would clearly show that there is no doubt I about the date on which the amendment was made to the provisions of the Act retrospectively with effecf from 11-5-2000. The show cause notice is issued on 9-11-2004. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and decision of this court, it cannot be disputed mat when the assessee is covered u/s 71-A of the Act any show-cause notice can be issued u/s 73 of the Act. The decision relied upon by the Tribunal of the Apex Court in L.H. Sugar Factoies Ltd.’s case (supra) has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment in Gujarat Carbon & Industries’ case (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent wherein it is clearly stated that class of persons who come under Section 71-A are not brought under net of Section 73 and show cause notice issued to the assessee invoking Section 73 are not maintainable.
Ravina Khurana Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- The applicant wants to re-argue and re-agitate the issues/ questions which have been considered and decided by this Court in the decision dated 20th April, 2011. This is not permissible. The review application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Madhya Bharat Energy Corpn Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- It is noted that the impugned assessment is in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act and the Act does not specifically provide that the assessment made under Section 147 of the Act will be after issue of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In fact, AO has the basic jurisdiction to assess the income in terms of Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act where he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.
Kanubhai M. Patel HUF Vs Hiren Bhatt (Gujarat High Court)- In the present case, the impugned notices have been signed on 31.03.2010, whereas the same were sent to the speed post centre for booking only on 07.04.2010.
CIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Maxim India Integrated (Karnataka High Court)- When assessee has been availing benefits u/s 80HHE, and applies to the STPI Director for the change in status, it cannot be denied benefits of Sec 10A on the ground that it had sought permission for a new unit and not the conversion of the existing one.
Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd VS Union of India (Uttarakhand High Court)- The petitioner consequently orally objected to the constitution of the collegium and submitted that there was a conflict of interest if the DIT-II continues to sit in the collegium since he was involved in the reassessment proceedings.
Emami Ltd. Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- Where on the last date of the Financial Year preceding the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax, he would be nevertheless asked to pay interest in terms of Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act for default in making payment of tax in advance which was physically impossible.
