Ravina Khurana Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- The applicant wants to re-argue and re-agitate the issues/ questions which have been considered and decided by this Court in the decision dated 20th April, 2011. This is not permissible. The review application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Madhya Bharat Energy Corpn Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- It is noted that the impugned assessment is in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act and the Act does not specifically provide that the assessment made under Section 147 of the Act will be after issue of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In fact, AO has the basic jurisdiction to assess the income in terms of Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act where he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs.
In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi (for short ‘the tribunal’) in ITA No. 2299/Del/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law.
CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd (Delhi High Court) – High Court observed that if the sale and lease back agreement between the assessee and the OSEB indicate that the assessee had purchased the plant and machinery from OSEB for a price and had leased out the same to OSEB on lease rent, the revenue department cannot discard the said sale and lease back agreement on the ground that the underlying motive of the assessee to enter into the said transaction was to reduce its income-tax liability.
CIT v Harsh Talwar (High Court of Delhi)- The Assessing Officer has gone on the presumption that the assessee himself agreed to the surrender on his own sweet will and consequently, penalty is leviable. This is not reason justifiable enough for the levy of penalty. The assessee might surrender an amount for taxation for various reasons best known to the assessee. The surrender of an amount to taxation in the course of assessment proceedings, no doubt is a good finding for initiation of penalty proceeding but is not strong enough for the levy of penalty especially when in the course of penalty proceedings the assessee is able to place evidences and explanation and where he is fully entitled to challenge the surrender and prove the surrender itself was not called for.
Indglonal Investment & Finance Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi HC)- Whether since in accordance with section 139(9) assessee had annexed statement of total income, computation of tax payable on total income and attachment of original TDS certificate to return of income, it could be held assessee had made a claim for refund – Held, yes – Whether therefore, revenue was to be directed to process claim on merits for refund to assessee – Held, yes
Regard being had to the language employed and the language engrafted in the circular, High Court is of the considered view that the issue raised falls in the realm of interpretation of the terms, namely – charter agreement . Factual matrix in each case has to be examined. High Court cannot examine and decide the issue in a vacuum. In praesenti , High Court is inclined to think so because the circular uses the terms – where the crew is also provided by the owners of the aircraft as in a wet lease of aircraft effective control is not transferred. Adjudication should take place first and till the adjudication is made, no coercive steps shall be taken against the members of the petitioner-association. In case members of the petitioner-association are aggrieved by any kind of adjudication, they can challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The issue pertaining to the validity of the circular is kept open.
Advance Television Network Ltd. Versus The Registrar Of Companies (Delhi High Court) – Mr. Beri submits that the petitioner-company has not done any business since 2001-2002 and thus, it has not earned any income for the last ten years. He states there is no hope or prospect of the petitioner-company doing any further business as stated in its Memorandum of Association. He submits that keeping in view the long duration in which the petitioner company had not done any business, it would be just and equitable to wind up the petitioner company. In this context, he relies upon judgments in Surendra Kumar Pareek Vs. Shree Guru Nanak Oils Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 82 CC 642 (Raj.), A. Sreedharan Nair Vs. Union Hardwares (Private) Ltd., (1997) 89 CC 37 (Kerala) and Registrar of Companies, Bihar Vs. Shreepalpur Cold Storage Private Ltd., (1974) 44 CC 479 (Patna).
CIT vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Even if there is no period of limitation prescribed u/s153 (3)(ii) to give effect to s. 263 orders, the AO is required to pass the order within a ‘reasonable period’. Non-specification of period of limitation does not mean that the AO can wait for indefinite period before passing the consequential order. On facts, the period of 3 years & 8 months that had elapsed since the passing of the s. 263 order was ‘certainly much beyond the reasonable period that can be allowed to the AO to pass the consequential order’. As the s. 263 order was rightly held to be infructuous, the effect order passed thereafter is not valid.
