Shriya Enterprises Vs. Commissioner,Commercial Taxes – , the court is the opinion that potato chips, being a processed vegetable, is liable to be taxed @ 4 per cent under entry 6 of Schedule-II(B) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order of the assessing authority, the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and are quashed. The revision is allowed. The assessing authority is directed to levy tax on the revisionist with respect to the potato chips @ 4 per cent instead of @ 12.5 percent.
CIT v. M/s State Urban Development Society (P&H High Court ) – It has been held that reflection in the profit and loss account towards the income is not determinative. The entries in the books of account do not decide the nature of receipts. Since, the grants have been received by the assessee for disbursement and keeping in view the fact that the same cannot be utilized for any other purpose such as distribution for the poverty in furtherance to the object of the Schemes, it cannot be treated as income of the assessee.
As regards first objection, from the finding of the Director (Exemption) it is undisputed that the assessee was carrying on charitable activity through another trust. Once the evidence produced disclose that the funds of the trust is applied for carrying on charitable activities, the purpose of establishing the trust is fully satisfied.
Honorable High Court held that waiver of unsecured loan is a capital receipt non chargeable to tax u/s 41(1) of the Act since there is no prior deduction/allowance of the same to assessee. The condition precedent is that there should be an allowance or deduction in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee.
Even if two views are possible, the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. It was held that the order passed by the High Court is incorrect, which decision cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of this Court as the decision of the High Court is binding on the subordinate Courts. If the judgment passed by this Court is erroneous, the revenue should have challenged the said order. At any rate that cannot be a ground for invoking Section 263 of the Act in the facts of this case.
CIT Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (Delhi High Court) A.O. having failed to record a finding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was a complete non- starter. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the Tribunal and we find no reason to disagree with the same. A mere erroneous claim made by an assessee, though under a bonafide belief that, it was a claim which was maintainable in law, cannot with more, lead to an imposition of penalty.
The contention of the assessee that warrant of authorization was not issued individually in the name of the assessee, thus, the case is distinguishable and the assessee was not prohibited from making any declaration of undisclosed income as the search itself conducted under section 132 was bad, does not merit acceptance.
S K Bothra & Sons, HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) – When the assessee has discharged the initial burden to prove the loan transaction, the addition made by the AO based on the report of the Inspector without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the alleged information, is not correct.- In our view, equity and justice demand that the full text of the information given by the Inspector to the Assessing Officer which is the basis of the conclusion of the assessment should be made known to the assessee before the same is used against him so that the genuineness of the said information can be rebutted by the appellant-assessee or at least, the assessee can get an opportunity to explain the said information.
CIT Vs Shri Nayan Arvind Shah (Bombay High Court)- Whether the value of the assets, for the purpose of computation of capital gains in the hands of the shareholders in respect of assets received from the liquidator of a company, should be taken at the fair market value (FMV) or at the FMV as reduced by the liabilities attached to it. It was held that the FMV, as reduced by the liabilities attached to it, forms the basis for computation of capital gains.
These two appeals are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) directed against the order dated 31st March, 2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
