Though the reliefs claimed in these four writ petitions are different, the core issue raised in all these four writ petitions is, whether any income chargeable to tax in India has accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen in India to New Cingular Wireless Services Inc
Shri Prodip Kumar Bothra vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Calcutta High Court)- A partnership firm cannot take advantage of the ownership of a property owned by its partner in his individual capacity for the purpose of getting benefit of taxation and in the same way, a partner also in his individual capacity cannot treat the right of possession exercised by the firm in any property as his own right of possession so as to get benefit of taxation.
J. K. Industries Limited Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. Thus, the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”), 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated September, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax Appeal bearing ITA No. 1449 (Cal)/2000 for the Assessment Year- 1997-98 and thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal.
Navelkar Estates Developers v CIT and ITO (Mumbai HC) The main contention of Shri V. R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the reasons have not been furnished to the Petitioner/Assessee for issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Assessee is not in a position to file objections to the issue on notice.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner points out to the case of GKN Driveshafts(India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others (2003) 1 SCC 72) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time so that the Assessee can file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
CIT v Alembic Glass Industries Limited (High Court of Gujarat) – The law is settled – if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain.
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs M/s H.M.T. Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)- There is no specific provision prescribing any limitation for passing the order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act.
In course of search on July 2, 1996 in the residential premises of one Bijay Kumr Gutgutia, some papers relating to the firm, M/s. Shree Krishna Arvind Hatcheries, along with other books of accounts and a bunch of papers with identification mark BKG/5 were seized.
Faridabad Investment Company Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. In The present case, we are of the firm opinion that there was no scope of rectification in the case on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record as the Assessing Officer even in his rectified order could not find out the actual expenditure for obtaining the dividend and calculated the same on the notional basis which is not permissible.
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeches to quash and set-aside the order dated 10th August, 2010, whereby the Director of Income Tax (CIB) Rajasthan, Jaipur imposed a penalty of 20,200/- rupees on the petitioner.
