Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Jain Export Private Ltd. held that, to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), it requires proper investigation and higher satisfaction of proof, which confirmed the basis for the initiation of necessary proceedings.
Delhi High court in the case of JRD Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT. held that the admission of assessee under Section 132(4) where he admitted about the possession of incriminating material would suffice to initiate the necessary proceedings.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High Court held that notice could not be served to transferor company after the Amalgamation have been done. As, it will be contrary to law to serve the notice to a non-existing company.
The Hon’ble High Court, in the present case held that the licence fee payable after 31st July 1999 should be treated as revenue expenditure. Similarly, if the interest was payable on license fee for the period post 31st July, 1999, it should be treated as revenue in nature.
The Hon’ble High Court held that Rule 37BA will not apply in this case as there is only minor procedural lapse and procedure is the handmaid of justice, and it cannot be used to hamper the cause of justice.
The Hon’ble High Court in the present case held that when the assessee claimed and was granted modvat credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules at the relevant time itself indicates that for purposes of excise, the assembling of cassettes amounted to manufacture.
The Hon’ble High court in the present case held that the assessee developed an infrastructure facility/project and was not required to maintain or operate, it was entitled to cost, plus the margin of income or profit. Assesee would be entitled to deduction under section 80-IB (10).
The Hon’ble High Court in this case held that when there is an assumption that the assessee did not maintain quantitative details of ingredients such as mixing gum, starch and oil, the conclusion could not be affirmed. As, decisions can’t be on the basis of Assumptions or Presumptions.
The assessee submitted that he was managing director of SISICOL, which had many deposit schemes and 290 units or branches to aid its operations. He was also a partner of the firm, which entered into an understanding with SISICOL
It would be the proximity of the reasons with the belief of escapement of income, which would be the determinative factor for reopening of the assessment. The remoteness of the reasons would obviate the possibility of a belief and would bring the case in the realm of mere suspicion
