Bee Pee Jay Finance Ltd. Vs CIT and Anr (Calcutta High Court)- By virtue of Section 11 5JA a legal fiction has been created by which if total income is found to be less than 30% of the book profit, the total income should be deemed to be 30% of the profit and in such a case, if charge ability of interest under Sections 234B and 234C are held applicable only in view of sub-Section (4) of Section 11 5JA, it would amount to adding another legal fiction to an existing legal fiction of Section 11 5JA( 1). According to Mr. Sen in case of a legal fiction, which has to be interpreted for giving its full logical coverage, another legal fiction cannot be added to the same and for the aforesaid proposition.
Jai Mica Supply Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkata High Court)- We do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Khaitan that there were conflicting views on this point when the notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued.
Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkata High Court)- We are of the opinion that the term ‘loss’ as occurring in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205 (1) of the Companies Act has to be understood and read as the amount arrived at after taking into account the depreciation. Then alone the formula prescribed in this clause would make sense and it would be consistent with the object sought to be achieved by enacting Section 115-J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If loss were to be taken as pre-depreciation loss then the resultant computation will not be in conformity with the tenor of the provisions of Section 205. The language of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205 (1) is clear.
Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd Vs CIT (High Court of Calcutta) – It was never the intention of the legislature to deprive an assessee of the benefit of deduction of tax, duty etc. actually paid by him during the previous year, although in advance, according to the method of accounting followed by him. If we accept the reasoning given by the Tribunal, an advance payer of tax, duty etc. payable in accordance with the method of accounting followed by him will not be entitled to get the benefit even in the next year when liability to pay would accrue in accordance with the method of accounting followed by him because the benefit of Section 43B is given on the basis of actual payment made in the previous year.
Shri Pankaj Rathi Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) – It is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (‘Act’) is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated April 23, 2003 read with the order dated July 10, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata, in ITA No.38(Kol) of 2002 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
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.
