CIT Vs DCM Limited (Delhi High Court)- Whether a mere proposal for enhancement of property tax would result in crystallisation of liability qua that portion of rate able value which was sought to be enhanced. There can be no dispute that liability does not cease to exist merely because the quantification of the liability is deferred.
If two views are possible than Assessing Officers should take the one favourable to the Assessee and penalty for concealment cannot be levied. CIT Vs Mahavir Irrigation Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- In this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false.
Desiccant Rotors International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi (Delhi High Court)- Payment made by the assessee on settlement of dispute with a company of USA being neither a fine or a penalty for a proved offence nor an amount of Compensation of an offence but is merely a sum in settlement of an action charging the assessee was denied and not proved the same cannot be rendered to be inadmissible deduction while determining the assessee’s income from business.
CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee accepts the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted in such a case.
Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)- When the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings and the information received is extremely scanty and vague, and the material based on which the proceedings are initiated does not indicate escapement of income, the AO will have no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148.
CIT Vs M/s SRF Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- Whether while computing the dis-allowance u/s 37(3), each trip of the employee will be considered separately and no set off will be allowed for the amount of deficit in the next trip by the same employee in the same year – Whether while computing book profits u/s 115J, the difference in the amount of depreciation on the revalued amount or the original cost is to be added back and the amount of revaluation reserve should be either credited in the profit and loss account or should be excluded from the depreciation claimed.- Revenue’s appeal allowed.
Anil Batra Vs CCIT (Delhi High Court)- Whether when assessee has already been convicted for two AYs and the complaint filed for the third year u/s 276B, any revision of the compounding guidelines and an intimation to the assessee in this regard would mean that compounding is allowable even after the complaint is filed?
These three appeals being ITA No. 310/09, 1115/10 and 358/11 are preferred against the orders passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („the Tribunal‟ for short) dated 22/08/08, 17/06/2009 and 16/07/2010 relating to assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2007- 08 respectively.
Teracom Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)- Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the term “begins to manufacture or produce articles or things” has been interpreted to mean the manufacture or production for the purpose of commerce and not for the purpose of testing.
CIT vs G4S Securities System (India) Private Limited (Delhi High Court)- Payment of royalty by the assessee on a year-to-year basis on the net sales in lieu of technical know-how assistance and the trademark would not amount to capital expenditure and will amount to revenue expenditure. The ownership rights of the trademark and know-how throughout were vested with G4F and on the expiration or termination of the agreement, the assessee was to return all G4F know-how obtained by it under the agreement. The payment of royalty was also to be on a year-to-year basis on the net sales of the assessee and at no point of time was the assessee entitled to become the exclusive owner of the technical know-how and the trademark. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the assessee as royalty is revenue expenditure and is, therefore, relatable under s 37(1) of the Act.
