M/s Varun Developers Vs CIT, Bangalore (Karnataka High Court)- In view of the submission made to consider whether the calculations have to be made on completion of the project after registering the plots in favour of the intended purchasers or customers, who had invested the amount from time to time, or as and when the amount is paid and accrued to the benefit of the petitioner for each assessment years and, also to consider the deductions available as per Section. 801B(10) of the Act and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer by quashing the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Revisional Authority. All the contentions are left open to be urged, Petitions are accordingly allowed.
The Bombay high court last week quashed the office memorandum / press release dated November 11 and policy circular dated December 22 last year as they were not issued under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, and, therefore, the restrictions contained in them were contrary to law.
The tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs. 4,65,860/-. As per the recent guidelines of the CBDT, appeal in those cases where the tax effect is less than Rs. 10 lacs, are not to be entertained. In this case court has taken the view that such circular would also apply to pending cases. A contrary view has been taken in CIT vs. M/s Varindera Construction Co (P&H High Court – Full Bench)
M/s Jai Ganesh Processors Vs. CCE, C, Chandigarh (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh) – Even though the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the assessee would not get benefit of exemption if duty had not been paid on inputs, the assessee held a bonafide view about interpretation of the notification. Thus, it may not be a case of deliberate evasion of duty. While the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim of the assessee that exemption was applicable, the setting aside of penalty cannot be held to be illegal. Levy of penalty is not automatic merely because an exemption was wrongly availed, even when plea of the assessee is found to be erroneous.
Circular dated 15.5.2008 laying down monetary limit controls the filing of the appeals and not their hearing. Appeals filed as per applicable limit at the time of filing cannot be governed by circular applicable at the time of hearing. The object of the Circular u/s 268A is only to govern monetary limit for filing of the appeals. There is no scope for reading the circular as being applicable to pending appeals.
CIT vs. M/s India Sea Foods (Kerala High Court) If an assessment happens to be an under-assessment or a mistaken order, the course open to the AO is either to rectify the mistake u/s 154 or to make a reassessment u/s 147. While, it is correct, as held in EID Parry 216 ITR 489 (Mad), that the AO has to choose between the two and cannot initiate both proceedings at the same time, the principle of constructive res judicata made applicable by the Madras High Court that the AO having initiated rectification proceedings u/s 154 should stick to the same only and cannot drop that and proceed u/s 147 is not acceptable. The fact that the AO invoked s. 154 and dropped it does not affect the validity of re-assessment u/s 147.
Whether the waiver of a loan is taxable as income or not depends on the purpose for which the loan was taken. If the loan was taken for acquiring a capital asset, the waiver thereof would not amount to any income exigible to tax u/s 28(iv) or 41(1). On the other hand, if the loan was taken for a trading purpose and was treated as such from the very beginning in the books of account, its waiver would result in income more so when it was transferred to the P&L A/c in view of Sundaram Iyengar 222 ITR 344 (SC).
The argument that if income is assessed by estimation on GP rate, no other disallowance can be made is not of universal application. If expenditure which is legally not permissible has been taken into account that can certainly be disallowed even where income is estimated. Though the provisions of block assessment are special, the argument that they are a complete Code and the other provisions cannot apply is not acceptable. Section 40A(3) of the Income tax Act applies to block proceedings
The Delhi high court last week held that the clause in a tender document for building contract permitting 5 per cent bid security amount to be forfeited in case of a non-responsive bid is “clearly penal in nature and thus provisions of Section 74 of the Contract Act would apply.” It cannot be categorized as a reasonable pre-estimate of damages for a non-responsive bid and thus the bank guarantee for 5 per cent of the bid amount cannot be encashed in such an eventuality. The high court ruled this in the case of IVRCL Infrastructure and Projects Ltd vs National Highway Authority of India. The “request for proposal” submitted by the firm for a road project in Tamil Nadu being responsive, the forfeiture was illegal the firm was entitled to refund of the amount from NHAI, the judgment said.
CIT vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd (P&H High Court)- Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to dispute the fact that there is no challenge to the finding that certificate issued to the assessee under Section 195(2) was never cancelled and in absence thereof, the assessee could not be treated as assessee in default. In view of the said unchallenged finding, the order of the Tribunal has to be sustained. Once it is so, we are of the view that the questions referred need not be gone into.
