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
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.
GKW Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Only profit on the sale of the licence should be chargeable to tax under s 28(iiia) and not the profit which may come in the future on the sale of the licence.
Emami Ltd. Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- Where on the last date of the Financial Year preceding the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax, he would be nevertheless asked to pay interest in terms of Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act for default in making payment of tax in advance which was physically impossible.
Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. ACIT (Calcutta HC) After selling all Sim cards and pre-paid coupons to retailers, franchisees were to make payment of sale proceeds to assessee after deducting a discount – Whether there was principal-agent relationship between assessee and franchisees and, therefore, receipt of discount by franchisee was, in real sense, commission paid to franchisees and same would attract provisions of section 194H – Held, yes
Shri Prodip Kumar Bothra vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Calcutta High Court)- A partnership firm cannot take advantage of the ownership of a property owned by its partner in his individual capacity for the purpose of getting benefit of taxation and in the same way, a partner also in his individual capacity cannot treat the right of possession exercised by the firm in any property as his own right of possession so as to get benefit of taxation.
J. K. Industries Limited Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta)- The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. Thus, the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”), 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated September, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax Appeal bearing ITA No. 1449 (Cal)/2000 for the Assessment Year- 1997-98 and thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal.
In course of search on July 2, 1996 in the residential premises of one Bijay Kumr Gutgutia, some papers relating to the firm, M/s. Shree Krishna Arvind Hatcheries, along with other books of accounts and a bunch of papers with identification mark BKG/5 were seized.
Faridabad Investment Company Limited Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court)- Rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. In The present case, we are of the firm opinion that there was no scope of rectification in the case on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record as the Assessing Officer even in his rectified order could not find out the actual expenditure for obtaining the dividend and calculated the same on the notional basis which is not permissible.
