Geofin Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Learned counsel for the petitioner Geofin Investment (P) Limited, submits that the tribunal had erred in dismissing the application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) as the tribunal in its order dated 13th October, 2010, had referred to and relied upon decision of another ITAT Bench which had not not been cited at the time of hearing. He submits that the order passed by the tribunal dated 13th October, 2010 under Section 254(1) of the Act, should have been recalled. Hoourable High Court do not find any merit in the said contention. Under Section 254(2), a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 383 of 2009, 987 of 2010, 1242 of 2010 and 1247 of 2010) held that once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has accepted a royalty payment to be at arm’s length, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not disallow the expenditure by applying Section 37 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The High Court further observed under Section 37 of the Act the AO had powers only to examine whether the expenditure claimed has been actually expended and was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, and not its reasonableness, which lies solely in the domain of the businessman.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s Mediworld Publications Pvt. Ltd ( ITA no 549 of 2011) held that transfer of intangible assets with right to carry on business was taxable as capital gains and not as business income.
CIT vs. Safetag International India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)- In the present case, the assessee did not ask for these ‘reasons to believe’. The assessee rather participated in the reassessment proceedings. When the reassessment orders were passed and the assessee felt aggrieved there against, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). In this appeal, he challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings, which was the course of action available to the assessee.
CIT Versus Sadhu Forging Ltd (Delhi HC) – Assessee in giving heat treatment for which it had earned labour charges and job-work charges, it can thus be said that the appellant had done a process on the raw material which was nothing but a part and parcel of the manufacturing process of the industrial undertaking. These receipts cannot be said to be independent income of the manufacturing activities of the undertakings of the assessee and thus could not be excluded from the profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IB. These were gains derived from industrial undertakings and so entitled for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80IB. There cannot be any two opinions that manufacturing activity of the type of material being undertaken by the assessee would also generate scrap in the process of manufacturing. The receipts of sale of scrap being part and parcel of the activity and being proximate thereto would also be within the ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deducting under Section 80IB.
CIT Versus Narayan Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC)- The Tribunal relied upon the case of ITO v. Smt. Darshan Kaur of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribuanl and also the case titled CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries, 180 ITR 319 and CIT v. M.P. Iron Traders 189 CTR 154, holding that the assumption of jurisdiction to frame the assessment by invoking Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was not justifiable in this case and consequently quashed the assessment framed under Section 143(3)/147. It is against this impugned order that the appeal has been preferred by Revenue. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in ITA No. 148/2008 titled as Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, pronounced today, i.e., 3rd June, 2011 by this Court.
National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. Versus CIT (DELHI HC)- In fact the liability on account of interest was to be deductable only when it gets crystallized into a certain liability and that took place only on this court passing a decree and awarding interest after the date of the award till the date of realization. Thus, we are of the view that the liability did not crystallize in the three assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99,but only came to be crystallized in the year 2000-2001, when this court passed decree on 28th January, 2000 and, therefore, the assessee could not claim deduction for the same in the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. We thus, answer question in affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and consequently dismissed the appeal.
CIT Versus Continental Engines Ltd. (Delhi HC) – There is no dispute that the assessee is an approved EOU unit approved by the NEPZ authorities and there is also no dispute that the assessee was having two units described as CEL-I and CEL-II and that the assessee was making exports. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have recorded as a matter of fact that the assessee was involved in manufacturing of an article or thing and that the mere fact that it was getting some works done on job basis from its sister concern would not deprive the assessee of its entity to be an EOU manufacturing unit.
Astra Housing & Investment P. Ltd v CIT (Delhi HC) The crux of the ratio of above decisions is that a mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. In order to be covered within the proviso of clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 271, there has to be concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Incorrect claim may not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Everything depends upon the return filed by the assessee, because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish particulars of his income. When such particulars are furnished inaccurately, the liability would arise.
CIT Versus The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Limited (Delhi HC) Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act cannot be initiated merely based on the audit report . An audit is principally intended for the purpose of satisfying the auditor with regard to sufficiency of rules and procedures prescribed for the purpose of securing an effective check on the assessment, collection and proper allocation of revenue. As per para (3) of the circular issued by the Board on July 28, 1960, also an audit department should not in any way substitute itself for the revenue authorities in the performance of their statutory duties.
