Cadila Healthcare Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court) -Assessing Officer was of the opinion that no part of the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. In fact, after the audit party brought the relevant aspects to the notice of the AO, she held correspondence with the assessee. Taking into account the assessee’s explanation regarding non-requirement of TDS collection and ultimately accepted the explanation concluding that in view of the Board’s circular, tax was not required to be deducted at source. No income had therefore escaped assessment. Despite such opinion of the Assessing Officer, when ultimately the impugned notice came to be issued the only conclusion we can reach is that the Assessing Officer had acted at the behest of and on the insistence of the audit party.
CIT Vs. I.P. India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) – Tt was held that a loan grants temporary use of money, or temporary accommodation, and that the essence of a deposit is that there must be a liability to return it to the party by whom or on whose behalf it has been made, on fulfilment of certain conditions. If these tests are applied to the facts of the case before us, it may be seen that the receipt of share application monies from the three private limited companies for allotment of shares in the assessee-company cannot be treated as receipt of loan or deposit.
As held in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) entitlement of assessee of any deduction cannot depend on the treatment accorded to such entries by the assessee. And, existence or absence of entries in the books of accounts is not determinative of such claim, but, that is depended on the provision of law that concerns such deduction.
CIT Vs. V R Textiles (Ahmedabad High Court) – On the ground that the entire undisclosed sales could not be treated as profit of the assessee, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v. President Industries Limited, [258 ITR 654 (Guj)], it upheld the findings of the CIT [A] which applies the gross profit ratio against the unaccounted sales for the purpose of making additions on account of undisclosed income. The Tribunal also ratified the decision of the CIT [A] in considering the issue of deployment of minimum capital investment for the purpose of making and rotating the sales outside the books of account. For not having found anything contrary to the findings arrived at by the CIT [A] and on cumulatively examining the facts, which were presented before the Tribunal, it upheld the findings of the CIT [A] which applied the gross profit ration as against the undisclosed sales made by the assessee for the purpose of making the additions. Thus, it could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of facts and material on record, it concluded the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It found sufficient material on record to uphold the findings arrived at by the CIT [A] and for so doing, it had given cogent reasons in its order
CIT Vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. (Ahmedabad High Court) – Factually, it found huge funds were available without any interest liability with the assessee and that there was no evidence to hold that the borrowed money was utilized for the purpose of advance to the sister concern. All these aspects cumulatively led the Tribunal to hold that the disallowance made only on the ground that advances were given out of the borrowed funds, holding the assessee ineligible for allowance of interest by the Assessing Officer of the sum of Rs.18.66 lacs was not sustainable.
The Assessing Officer supplied reasons he had recorded for reopening the assessment, which read as under:- “The assessee company filed its return of income on 22.12.2006, declaring total income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) was finalized on 18.06.2008 determining the taxable income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. It is seen that the assessee company had made payment of Rs.21,60,399/- in Foreign Company for purchase of raw materials. However, neither did the company deduct TDS on this amount nor any certificate obtain from the concerned Assessing Officer for non-deduction of TDS. Prasad Koch Technik Tech Pvt Ltd Vs. Versus ACIT (Ahmedabad High Court)
CIT Vs. Harinder Sachdev (Delhi HC) – A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 1 (Del.) has held that service of notice within the time as stipulated in the proviso to Section 143(2) is mandatory. In case service is not effected within the time stipulated in the proviso, this would render the assessment void. The aforesaid decision in the case of Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (supra) has been followed in CIT Vs. Vardhman Estates P. Ltd., [2006] 287 ITR 368 (Del.) and CIT Vs. Bhan Textiles P. Ltd., [2006] 287 ITR 370 (Del.).
R. K. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)- The matter is remanded back to the CIC for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the petitioner could be disclosed. If the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act.
Udyog Bharati Vs ITO (Ahmedabad High Court)- In the first place it was not necessary for the appellant to file a cross-objection. As already noted, the assessee had raised an alternative contention of exemption under Section 11 of the Act before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) in view of his opinion that the benefit of Section 10(23) of the Act is required to be granted, did not examine this alternative contention on merits. In that view of the matter, when the Revenue had carried the CIT(A)’s order before the Tribunal, it was open for the assessee to support the order on all grounds including those which may not have been accepted or examined by the CIT(A). For this purpose, cross-objection was not necessary. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal not entertaining such cross-objection on the ground of delay, to our mind, would not be fatal to the assessee’s contention. It is clarified that if the Revenue’s appeal before the Court is entertained further, it would be open for the assessee to support the orders in its favour on all grounds.
CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (Delhi HC)- Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife‟s name was also included additionally. Such inclusion of the name of the wife for the above-stated peculiar factual reason should not stand in the way of the deduction legitimately accruing to the assessee.
