The unit in question is situated at Nashik, Maharashtra within the jurisdiction of this Court. The said unit was initially administered by the LTU at Delhi and it is only as an afterthought the revenue is contending that the unit in question would not be governed by the LTU scheme for the period where there was no specific approval. If mere forwarding of the consent letter entitles the large tax payer to avail the benefits of the LTU scheme then the benefits of the LTU cannot be denied where the consent is impliedly given by submitting ER-1 returns regularly. The show cause noticed is issued by the LTU, Delhi to the petitioner’s unit at Nashik. Thus, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the show cause notice issued by the LTU, Delhi to the unit of the petitioner set up at Nashik.
Aayojan Developers vs ITO (Ahemdabad High Court) -Merely because of the fact that the assessee had asserted that it is a developer in the returns filed by him, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. At best, the petitioner has made a claim along with supporting documents, namely, development agreements for construction of housing projects, etc. and based upon the said documents, the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion and granted deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. As to whether in a given set of facts, the assessee is a developer or a works contractor is a matter of inference. Hence, the assertion that the petitioner is a developer, without anything more cannot be said to be an incorrect disclosure of facts, as is sought to be contended on behalf of the revenue. In the circumstances, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is illegal and invalid. The proceedings under section 147 of the Act which have been initiated by issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, therefore, cannot be sustained.
The contention that under section 80-I(6) the profits derived from one industrial undertaking cannot be set off against loss suffered from another and the profit is required to be computed as if profit making industrial undertaking was the only source of income, has no merit.
CIT Vs. Nestle India Ltd. -The Delhi high court last week dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax in a dispute over the deduction claimed by IT return in respect of remuneration/royalty paid by it to other subsidiaries and holding companies. The assessing officer disallowed the claim and the tax appellate tribunal held that the revenue authorities were wrong, leading to the appeal. The company, which makes food products and beverages, had debited a huge amount on account royalty payable to two overseas companies, namely Nestec S.A. and Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., Switzerland. These payments were claimed as business expenditure on account of technical assistance rendered by the two companies to the Indian company. The authorities felt that the deduction was excessive. The high court upheld the ruling of the tribunal, which stated that the revenue authorities have not specified as to how much ordinary profit was supposed to be and the basis of its determination, before treating royalty payment as excessive and unreasonable.
CIT Vs Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Income tax – Capital or Revenue Receipt – Rule 115 – Whether, if assessee receives a sum on account of non-performance of the terms of the agreement by the purchaser under an arbitration award and keep it in the capital account, the surplus arising on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange is taxable as revenue receipt or should be considered as capital receipt – Whether profit and loss arising on account of appreciation or depreciation in the value of foreign currency is taxable only when there is actual conversion of foreign currency – Case Remanded
CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (Delhi High Court) Though it is possible that but for detection in the survey, the assessee might not have offered the income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can only be levied if “in the course of proceedings” the AO is satisfied that there is “concealment” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars“. The words “in the course of proceedings” mean the assessment proceedings because there is no question of the satisfaction of the AO in survey proceedings. Further, the question whether there is “concealment” or “inaccurate particulars” has to be determined with reference to the return of income. As the assessee had offered the detected income in the return, there was neither concealment nor the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Recently, the ITAT Delhi in the case of Eon Technology (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2011] 11 taxmann.com 53 (Del) held that payment by way of commission for sales and marketing support outside India does not constitute income chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax act, 1961 (the Act).
Event and Entertainment Management Association versus Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)- Delhi HC has dismissed the petition seeking a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, to frame objective standards for determination and levying of royalties of various copyrighted works administered by Phonographic Performance Ltd and the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd and the mode of enforcing and administering such royalties. The association had also sought a further direction for investigation of the books of account of the two copyright societies to ascertain whether they have paid their dues to the owners/authors of copyrights. The association alleged that the government has failed to set down any objective standards and criteria for charging of royalties by the two societies, and the latter are therefore acting arbitrarily in fixing tariffs. The high court rejected the prayers stating that the fixation of tariff or royalties by the two companies in exercise of their powers under the Copyright Act is not arbitrary or unreasonable. The judgment explained that the law itself provided a mechanism for fixing tariffs and the matter can be dealt with by the copyright board.
Recently in the case of ITC Ltd v. CIT [2011-TIOL-287-HC-DEL-IT], the Delhi High Court (HC) held that the tips or service charges distributed to employees are to be treated as part of salary and tax is required to be withheld under section 192 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) from the same. The AO treated the value of these tips as ‘salary’ and held that the assessees were liable to withheld tax at source from such payments under section 192 of the Act.
Every claim made against an insurance company in respect of a loss, would be a claim within purview of claims “requiring to be paid or settled” under section 64UM(2) of Insurance Act.
