Arjun Industries Ltd & Anr Vs. Industrial Development Bank Of India & Anr.(Delhi HC) – Para 7 of the order dated 23.05.2007 reads as under:- ‘During the course of arguments, we had put to learned counsel for the parties that prima facie there does not appear to be any legal impediment or obstacle in the assignment of the debt by financial institution like IDBI. However, if the respondents wish to contest the O.A. filed by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal on merits and/or to contend that petitioner was also bound by the settlement recommended for acceptance by the petitioner predecessor-ininterest i.e. IDBI or to urge any ground on merits in defence to the OA,
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. (Jodhpur High Court) – Court is of the opinion that even though in the era of E-filing of the returns under the various laws, such a practice deserves to be encouraged and is acceptable form of filing of returns to the various Tax Department, it is admitted position before this Court that relevant Rules for filing of soft copies of these returns viz. VAT-07, VAT-08 and VAT-9, particularly assessment year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 were not available on the statue book on the date when they were filed. In the present case, as aforesaid, the relevant amendments in Rule 19 and 1 9A reproduced above were brought w.e.f. 20.11.2007 and 29.8.2008 respectively. The notification Annex.10 placed on record also permits only a particular class of dealers to file such returns electronically. The notification dtd.27.2.2009 was given immediate effect and the date admittedly fell after relevant dates of filing of soft copy in the present case viz. On 16.10.2006, 30.11.2006, 28.2.2007 and 31.5.2007 respectively.
CIT Vs.Nimbus Communications Limited (Bombay HC) – there is dispute that the assessee has in fact incurred the expenditure and that on account of the aborted public issue offer, no new asset has come into existence and consequently there is no question of the assessee getting any enduring benefit. With the approval of SEBI, the assessee was to increase the share capital and thereby promote its business activity. However, the same got aborted due to reasons beyond its control. In these circumstances, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s.Essar Oil Limited, Income Tax Appeal (L) No.921 of 2006 decided on 16th October 2008, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in allowing the aborted share issue expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd Vs ACIT (Bombay HC) – In the present case, admittedly, the reopening of the assessment is beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The jurisdictional condition under Section 147 in such a case is that there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that Assessment Year. As noted earlier, in the narration of facts, there was a disclosure by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings of the fact that (i) During the previous year ending 31 March 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into with a Swiss Company; (ii) Under the MOU, the outstanding balance of the loan was settled at Swiss Francs 480,000 as against the outstanding balance of 800,000 Swiss francs;
Maheshwari Agro Industries Vs. UOI (Rajasthan HC) – the income assessed by the Assessing Officer is almost 47 times of the income declared by the assessee viz. Rs. 1,44,42,320/- against the declared income of Rs.3,48,140/-. The disputed demand of tax also would be almost the same multiples of the declared and admitted tax liability or may be more because of interest and penalties.
CIT Vs. Sanjaykumar Mansukhlal Dhabba (Gujrat HC)- In the said case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries [Supra], the Division Bench of this Court upheld the view of the Tribunal limiting the additions to 25%, where it was found that the goods were received from the parties other than the persons who had issued the bills of such goods. Though the purchases were shown to have been made by making payment to some other parties, the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal both came to the conclusion that under such circumstances, the likelihood of the purchase price being inflated could not be ruled out.
CIt Vs. Sayaji Industries Ltd (Gujarat High Court)- There were voluminous records suggesting that the LGDA is not only the sole selling agent of the assessee, but it also does not undertake any other task except to promote the sales of the assessee company. Additionally, the assessee has larger number of customers and the LGDA supports such customers and maintains its agents and branches across the country. In view of such complex set up, between the assessee and the LGDA, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error in accepting the entire commission paid to LGDA.
CIT Vs. Smt. Shaila Agarwal (Allahabad High Court ) – he second proviso to Section 153A of the Act, refers to abatement of the pending assessment or re-assessment proceedings. The word ‘pending’ does not operate any such interpretation, that wherever the appeal against such assessment or reassessment is pending, the same alongwith assessment or reassessment proceedings is liable to be abated. The principles of interpretation of taxing statutes do not permit the Court to interpret the Second Proviso to Section 153A in a manner that where the assessment or reassessment proceedings are complete, and the matter is pending in appeal in the Tribunal, the entire proceedings will abate.
CIT Vs. S R M B Udyog Ltd. (Kokata High Court)- Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, effect of amalgamation is winding up of the transferor company. Moreover, from the terms of the amalgamation which have been accepted by this Hon’ble Court, it appears that whatever proceedings were pending or were sought to be initiated after the date of the order of amalgamation, were to to done against the transferee company. Under such circumstancs, we could gather from the facts that the appeal was preferred by SRMB Udyog Ltd. before the Commissioner of Income Tax after the order of amalgamation was passed; similarly the department preferred an appeal subsequently. It is settled law that no proceedings can be brought against a nonexistent person either natural or artificial.
CIT v. EHPT India P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- Section 10A provides for deduction for profits derived from the export of software for a period of ten years. During the period of tax-holiday, it is desirable that the same method of computing the profits of the STP unit is adopted so that any distortion is avoided. We must however clarify that we are not to be understood as laying down as a proposition that in all cases arising under Section 10A, where the question of apportionment of common/indirect expenses between the taxable and the exempt units arises, the head-count method is the most appropriate method.
