CIT vs Best Plastics (P) Ltd. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have both relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 272 to have that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) binding on the officers of the Income-tax Department. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.
CIT vs Dharmendra Sharma – This decision was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and by an order dt. 7th March, 2007 [reported as CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268—Ed.], the Supreme Court observed that it was concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of s. 43B of the Act. The assessee was entitled to claim the benefit provided under s. 43B of the Act for that period particularly in view of the fact that he had contributed to provident fund before filing the return. Accordingly, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of Gauhati High Court was dismissed.
In the present case, admittedly the Assessment Year being 1988-89 and the search having taken place on 03.07.1987 the return of income was not due before 31.07.1988. Therefore, whether the income represented by the value of the asset was shown in the return of income or not became irrelevant once a declaration had been made about such income having not been disclosed
ANY business is a tricky ‘business’ for its doers ! It is tricky because of the presence of many parameters beyond the control of the doers. Under such circumstances, what is to be treated as normal expenditure of business is the sum of compensation which a business-doer has to incur as expenditure for paying damages in case of non-fulfilment of certain obligations under a contract. Now, the major question is whether such an expenditure can be treated as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business as mandated by the provision of the Sec 37(1) of the Income Tax Act?
Even a conjoint reading of Section 36(1)(iii) as existing prior to the proviso thereto and Section 43(1) explanation 8 clearly shows that any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the acquisition of an asset cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure. The capital might have been borrowed by an assessee for the purpose of business. However, once it is admitted that a part thereof was used by the assessee for the purpose of acquisition of an asset, which is not in the form of replacement or modernization the interest component thereon upto the date it is first put to use has to be dealt with in terms of provisions of Section 43 (1) explanation 8 as otherwise cost of the asset shown in the balance sheet will not depict its true picture. This is in conformity with law and the accounting principles.
Tarun Ghia Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others The Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant in practice and claims to be qualified to undertake the audit of societies as contemplated under Section 81 (1)(a) and 81(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. He was on the panel of auditors maintained by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies – Respondent No.3. According to the Petitioner the powers of empanelment, removal and other matters relating to functioning of the Chartered Accounts in contemplation to those provision was arbitrary and discretionary; and the Respondents were acting in a very unfair manner. On these 2 premises the Petitioner prayed for an issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.3 to produce the entire records in connection with the list of societies with basic details like turnover, working capital, audit fees of the previous year and the Respondents be directed to prepare proper guidelines introducing transparency and fairness in empanelment of the auditors for awarding of auditing work in the co-operative societies. The Petitioner has further prayed that Respondent No.3 should publish the list and the consideration for empanelment should be objective and not supported by extraneous criteria.
Section 271B, read with section 44AB, of the Income-tax, 1961 – Penalty – For failure to get accounts audited – Assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90 – Whether section 271B is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken – Held, yes
The Hon’ble Court held that the fact that parties were in discussions on the issue of payment for the extra work items undertaken by the Appellant and the exact work to be executed where-after the Respondent submitted its final bill followed by the No-Claim Certificate would be “clear cut evidence” to show that there was an accord on all disputes between the parties which was arrived at after protracted correspondence and claims in respect of the disputes settled in the accord could not have been raised and the accord reopened.
The Tribunal has the discretion of granting stay and dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty. Secondly, the argument that under Section 35-C(2A) of the Act, the appeal is required to be heard within 180 days, would also be frivolous as the stay order is not co-terminus with the period prescribed for disposal of the appeal.
The learned Tribunal has noted that it was common ground between both the parties that the income of the Assessee was liable to be determined on an estimate basis.
