Upholding the Central Information Commission (CIC) order that office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is well within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Delhi High Court Wednesday ruled that judges should declare their assets. In a historical judgement, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said judges are accountable but they are also subject to some constraints.
In assessment proceedings, the AO raised a query about disallowance of expenditure attributable to exempted dividend income u/s 14A. After considering the assessee’s reply, no disallowance was made u/s 14A, though interest expenditure was disallowed on the ground that it was not for business purposes. This was confirmed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the assessee
It is settled position of law that appeal is creature of Statute and appeal can be filed only when permitted by Statute and can be filed on the grounds mentioned In the Statute. In terms of section 260-A the High Court gets power to hear and decide an appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved. The section 260-A of the Act of 1961 thus, authorizes the High Court to hear an appeal only when substantial question of law is involved.
The assessee entered into a contract with Raytheon – Ebasco, a foreign company, and two of its’ foreign subsidiaries, for commissioning of a power plant. The assessee made payments to Raytheon for rendering technical services, providing ‘start-up’ services and taking ‘overall responsibility’ for the Project. The two foreign subsidiaries of Raytheon carried on onshore services
Cross appeals filed by the assessee, a State Govt. undertaking, and the department were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the parties had not obtained the approval of the Committee on Disputes (“COD”). The assessee as well as the department challenged the decision of the Tribunal. HELD, reversing the decision of the Tribunal:
Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. reported in [2006] 286 ITR 1 (P&H); 156 Taxman 257 (P&H) are not applicable in this case and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not as per law.
EPCG-Before the aforesaid company availed of the benefit of 10% duty of customs scheme in April 1999, the government had introduced a 0% duty of customs scheme with effect from April 1, 1999. The benefit of the above scheme was made available for the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. But no notification was issued to that effect in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.
As the VDIS 1997 certificate issued by the department is valid and subsisting, it is not open to the revenue to contend that there was no jewellery which could be sold by the assessee on 20/1/1999.It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee continues to be in possession of the said diamond jewellery even after the alleged sale effected on 20-1-1999 or that the said jewellery has been sold to third parties.
The Division Bench in the facts of the case had held that there was absence of any material to show that generally there was a profit in the hospital activities of the petitioner therein. In this context, it was held that it cannot be said that the petitioner did not exist solely for philanthropic purpose but, for the purpose of profit and the rejection of the application of the petitioner therein was held not valid
CIT Vs. Indersons Leather P. Ltd. (P&H HC)- The assessee company, after discontinuing its manufacturing business, leased out its shed along with fittings and disclosed the income as income from business, whereas the Revenue contended that the same be assessed as “Income from house property. The issue under consideration is whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed in such a case. On this issue, the High Court observed that, mere raising of a debatable issue would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
