Stephens College, Delhi vs. St. Stephens College Alumni Association and Others (Delhi High Court ) For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, defendant No. 1 is restrained from using the name St. Stephens College Alumni Association. It is also restrained from using the official crest, logo or motto of St. Stephens College, Delhi as also the domain name http://ststephensalumni.co.in. Defendant No. 1, however, will be entitled to use the name „Association of Old Stephanians‟, subject to the condition that it will display an appropriate disclaimer on its website, as and when it is started under a new domain name, that it is not the official/approved/recognized alumni association of St. Stephens College and it has no connection or affiliation either with St. Stephens College, Delhi or St. Stephens College Alumni Association.
CIT Versus Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (Delhi HC) – It was contended that mould an necessary input for making the desired plastic components. These moulds have to be replaced over a period of time due to normal wear and tear. The assessee used to purchase new injection moulding machine. Moulds purchased alongwith such new machines are capitalized by it alongwith the cost of new injection moulding machine. However, if moulds only are replaced then it claimed the expenses representing the value of replaced mould as revenue expenses
CIT Vs. Harnarai (Delhi High Court) – In the absence of any material on record to suggest that it was bogus or untrue. It is further evident that there was neither any detection nor any information in the possession of the Revenue which might lead to a conclusion that there was a detection by the Revenue of concealment. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
In the present matter it is seen that TDS has been deducted on “estimated income” of the employee, and the employer was not expected to step into the shoes of the AO and determine the actual income. Furthermore, under Section 191 of the Act the liability to pay the tax was that of the recipient, and that while forming this opinion the employer was undoubtedly expected to act honestly and fairly and, therefore, if it is found that the estimate made by the employer is incorrect, this fact alone, without anything more, would not inevitably lead to the inference that the employer has not acted honestly and fairly as held in the decision of Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd.(supra).
The present notice to show cause is not one where the question of limitation can be decided straightaway on law without adverting to intrinsic facts. It is also not a case where it can be said that the revenue has sent an indiscriminate show cause notice without proper application of mind. Issues require to be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and the show cause on the grounds urged cannot be lanceted.
CIT Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (Delhi High Court) A.O. having failed to record a finding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was a complete non- starter. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the Tribunal and we find no reason to disagree with the same. A mere erroneous claim made by an assessee, though under a bonafide belief that, it was a claim which was maintainable in law, cannot with more, lead to an imposition of penalty.
These two appeals are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) directed against the order dated 31st March, 2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) pertaining to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Gupta & Gupta Chartered Accountants & Anr. Vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)- The Delhi High Court has held as illegal the decision of RBI to discontinue the services of a Statutory Central Auditor (SCA) of Punjab National Bank (PNB) without fair and proper enquiry into the allegations against the firm.
CIT Vs Mohair Investment & Trading Co (Delhi High Court)- From a plain reading of the relevant Sections it is clear that the period of six months provided for imposition of penalty under Section 275(1)(a) starts running after the successive appeals from an assessment order has been finally decided by the CIT(A) or the ITAT as the case may be whichever period expires later. The proviso to section 275(1)(a) has only had the effect of extending the period of imposing penalty from six months to one year within the receipt of the order of the Commissioner after 1st June, 2003.
CIT Vs M/s National Travel Services (Delhi High Court)- When Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act enacts a deeming provision, it has to be strictly construed. At the same time, it is also trite that such a deeming provision has to be taken to its logical conclusion. If the partnership firm which has purchased the shares is not treated as shareholder merely because the shares were purchased in the name of the partners, that too because of the legal compulsion that shares could not be allotted to the said partnership firm which is a non legal entity, it would be impossible for such a condition to be fulfilled.
