The present case is related to search & seizure action carried out in case of Sh. S.K. Gupta (‘third party’) in respect of companies and other business entities which were controlled by him or owned by him or different individuals connected with him.
However, where the fundamental transaction is shown to be a sham transaction, the same cannot necessarily be accepted as genuine merely because a broker’s confirmation and invoices have been produced. Given the facts of this case, the decisions referred to by CIT(A)
Mistake apparent on the record u/s 154 must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions.
The petitioner by letter dated 17th November, 2011 had disclosed a foreign bank account which existed with the HSBC Private Bank, Geneva, Switzerland to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II). The peak amount lying in the said account during the year ending 31st March, 2007 was around US$ 1.3 million.
Whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Om Prakash Khaitan held that In the absence of change in system of accounting consistently followed by the assessee and accepted by the department, the department cannot take different stand for the subsequent years.
Delhi High Court in the case of Maithon Power Ltd. vs. CIT held that The expenditure incurred to set up operations forms the part of capital work in progress and thus, the subsequent reimbursement of any part thereof would be a capital receipt which will get reduced from the amount capitalized under the capital WIP.
In the case of CIT vs M/s.Motherson Auto P. Ltd, Delhi High Court held that the monopoly enjoyed by the assessee in respect of the product manufactured, the continuous functioning, the large volume of orders at hand when the collaboration transaction took place, were sufficient basis for valuation.
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the Iraqi Government’s inability to pay due to sanctions imposed by it and the subsequent Central Government’s negotiating an arrangement for its payment through bonds that were to mature in future with interest did not in any way alter their character
In the present case the Hon’ble High court while deciding two vital issues held that the estoppels does not apply against a statute and Mere expansion of the Existing Units can’t be termed as a separate undertaking in order to claim deductions under section 10A.
