Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs.
ITA No.174 of 2011 has been preferred by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT Delhi “C” Bench in ITA No. 2656/Delhi/2008 dated 10.7.2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 raising following substantial questions of law
In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi (for short ‘the tribunal’) in ITA No. 2299/Del/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law.
CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd (Delhi High Court) – High Court observed that if the sale and lease back agreement between the assessee and the OSEB indicate that the assessee had purchased the plant and machinery from OSEB for a price and had leased out the same to OSEB on lease rent, the revenue department cannot discard the said sale and lease back agreement on the ground that the underlying motive of the assessee to enter into the said transaction was to reduce its income-tax liability.
Manharbhai Muljibhai Kakadia Vs UoI (Gujrat HC at Ahemdabad) Whether the assessee is entitled to waiver of interest u/s 234B & 234C relying on the circular dated 23.05.2006 in which waiver is given on account of non-adjustment of seized cash by the department against the tax liability though at the time of making of application of waiver such circular was superseded by circular dated 26.06.2006 in which no such waiver was permitted. – Assessee’s appeal dismissed.
It is noticed that the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner under section 271FA on February 23, 2010, requiring him to attend his office on March 11, 2010, and show cause as to why the penalty under section 271FA should not have been imposed upon him for failure to file the annual information returns within the prescribed time.
CIT Versus Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. (HC of Gujrat at Ahemdabad) – The tribunal however, was of the opinion that the assessee company had undertaken activities in earlier year in accordance with its main objects contained in memorandum of Articles of Association of the company.
CIT v Harsh Talwar (High Court of Delhi)- The Assessing Officer has gone on the presumption that the assessee himself agreed to the surrender on his own sweet will and consequently, penalty is leviable. This is not reason justifiable enough for the levy of penalty. The assessee might surrender an amount for taxation for various reasons best known to the assessee. The surrender of an amount to taxation in the course of assessment proceedings, no doubt is a good finding for initiation of penalty proceeding but is not strong enough for the levy of penalty especially when in the course of penalty proceedings the assessee is able to place evidences and explanation and where he is fully entitled to challenge the surrender and prove the surrender itself was not called for.
Indglonal Investment & Finance Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi HC)- Whether since in accordance with section 139(9) assessee had annexed statement of total income, computation of tax payable on total income and attachment of original TDS certificate to return of income, it could be held assessee had made a claim for refund – Held, yes – Whether therefore, revenue was to be directed to process claim on merits for refund to assessee – Held, yes
Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT (Calcutta HC) After selling all Sim cards and pre-paid coupons to retailers, franchisees were to make payment of sale proceeds to assessee after deducting a discount – Whether there was principal-agent relationship between assessee and franchisees and, therefore, receipt of discount by franchisee was, in real sense, commission paid to franchisees and same would attract provisions of section 194H – Held, yes
