CIT Vs The Maratha Mandir Co-op. Bank Ltd. (Bombay High Court)- Interest income in the present case arose on account of giving advance rent to the landlord from whom premises were taken on rent for the purpose of carrying on banking business.
Sahney Kirk wood Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)- In the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the transaction was not genuine, the amounts received by an intermediary cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
Bajaj Travels Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (Delhi HC)- The appellant submitted a detailed written reply dated 17th November, 2005. The defence was that it was paying service tax as per its bona fide understanding that the service tax was to be paid on the commission retained by the appellant. It was pleaded that the matter of calculation was not clear to it. Therefore, it had been filing its service tax returns on the basis of the commission retained by it and the correct method of computing the service tax was pointed out by the visiting team of the department. Therefore, the allegation of suppression, mis-statement were wrongly attributed to it. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also referred to series of orders passed by the various Benches of CESTAT where such penalties were set aside holding that when the service tax/short-service tax was paid before the show cause notice, it was a bona fide error.
Shri Pankaj Rathi Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) – It is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.
Amar R Shanbhag Vs ITO (Mumbai High Court)- There was inordinate delay in obtaining commencement certificate and, therefore, the petitioner once again terminated the Development Agreement dated 17th September 2004.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (‘Act’) is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated April 23, 2003 read with the order dated July 10, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.38(Kol) of 2002 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Dinesh B Parikh Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Admission of Additional Evidence– Whether when no application for additional evidence is made, ITAT should even then consider the additional evidence while deciding the appeal
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of judgement dated 16/6/2011 delivered by Hon’ble High Court,Madras in the W.P.No. 21520,21782 and 21783/2010 filed in the matter of BSNL Vs. Union of India & others. The Hon’ble High Court has upheld the decision of RPFC that PF contributions need to be deducted for training period of Junior Telecom Officers/Junior Accounts Officers and other similarly placed employees.
Bhartia Industries Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkutta HC) – The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act questioning the allowance of the said payments made on account of VRS by the Assessing Officer and an order under Section 263 of the Act dated March 4, 2003 was passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. In the said order the Commissioner observed that the Assessing Officer was bound by the Circular dated January 23, 2001 issued by the Board as to the eligibility of deduction of such payment on account of VRS and he should not have allowed such payment. The Commissioner set aside the entire assessment for being made de novo and directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment in the light of the said Circular of the Board.
Please find enclosed herewith a copy of judgement dated 15/6/2011 delivered by Honourable Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the matter of EPFO Vs. Roll well Forge Ltd. on the issue of initiating recovery action before expiry of limitation period of appeal prescribed under Sec.7-1 of the Act. While overturning the decision of Single Bench
