ITO V/s. Tropicana Beverages Company (ITAT Delhi)- When it is established that the machinery on which depreciation has been claimed by the assessee, had been provided by the assessee to Dynamix for the purpose of manufacturing the product of the assessee, necessarily the machinery was used for the purpose of the business of the assessee. That being so, ‘used for the purposes of the business’ in section 32 of the Act is applicable to the assessee.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee has failed to establish that disclosure of additional income in the revised return by way of declaring G. P. rate at 15% as against 6.93% shown in return filed u/s. 153A of the Act was voluntary and in good faith to buy peace with the department. On the other hand, the assessee filed the revised return only after the concealment was detected by the AO and he confronted the assessee with the same. In such circumstances, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Ps.14,61,678/- for concealment of income has rightly been levied by the A.O.
ACIT Vs M/s Yug Corporation (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the terms of the development agreements and the agreement to sell (copies filed on record) with both the societies, according to which the responsibilities of the assessee have been analyzed in such manner that planning, sanction of plan, work of construction, development of the property, engagement of labourers etc. have to be done by the assessee. It was also provided that the assessee would receive the entire sale consideration of the housing units and the assessee shall be entitled to accept the payments from the members/buyers.
Bhuwania Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- On investigation of the assessee’s purchases, it was noticed that the same were from Shri Shivkaran Goel who admitted before the Customs authorities as well as AO that he had not supplied any goods to the assessee, with which flanges liners with 55% tin could be manufactured.
Mid-Day Multimedia Ltd Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The provisions of rule 8D of the Rules which have been notified with effect from March 24, 2008, would apply with effect from assessment year 2008-09. Even prior to assessment year 2008-09, when rule 8D was not applicable, the AO had to enforce the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 14A. For that purpose, the AO is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The AO must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record.
Pidilite Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Section 80-IA(5) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply, shall for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year up to and including the assessment year for which the determination is to be made. It is noticed that by virtue of sub-section (5), section 80-IA has become a stand alone provision.
Bhoruka Engineering Inds. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)- The whole transaction has been arranged in a sequential manner with M/s. Bhoruka Steel Ltd selling its landed property to BFSL for a nominal value of Rs. 3.75 crores ; BFSL never before doing any business other than financial services purchases the land for Rs. 3.75 crores ; immediately thereafter the assessee company and its entire group holding 98.73% of shares in BFSL selling the share holding to DLFCDL for a consideration of Rs. 89,28,36,500/- without attracting any levy of taxation.
ITO Vs M/s Universal Associates (ITAT Ahemedabad)- Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above decisions, we are of the view that the at least the assessee has been able to explain reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law. The ex-partners have introduced their capital in the assessee firm and on retirement they were given their amount back through bearer cheques and, therefore, the assessee is able to prove that it had reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law.
Procter & Gamble Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the non-competition fee paid to the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure– Whether the amount paid for licence fee is revenue expenditure for the rights granted which are non-exclusive rights to use the trademarks
Krishna Murthy Vallu Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)- If land which is sold is situated in an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality, etc, then the said land is squarely covered by clause (a) of section 2(14)(iii) and would fall in the category of ‘Capital assets’ even if it is held to be agricultural land. However, the assessee would be entitled for an exemption under section 54B on the reinvestment made by him in the purchase of another agricultural land subject to fulfilment of certain conditions.
