Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Versus CIT (Delhi High Court)- The Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings are initiated but he was not so justified when the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. Consequently, we answer the first part of question in affirmative in favour of Revenue and the second part of the question against the Revenue.
Vishwanath Khanna Vs. UOI & Others (Delhi High Court) – The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle (20)(1), New Delhi passed order under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act dated 02.06.1995 declaring that cash found during search as unexplained and hence, cash seized of Rs. 49,86,500/- was retained and not released. Subsequently, vide another order under Section 132(5) dated 19.06.2005, various disputed additions were made and tax and penalty @200% were raised. Therefore, entire silver seized valuing Rs. 4,44,66,395/- was retained and not released. We may mention at this state that the Income Tax Department disputed the status of M/s Foto Traders, as according to it, it was an unregistered partnership firm. Therefore, the Department intended to tax income in the hands of this firm. The concerned Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order under Section 143(3) in the name of M/s Foto Traders after making huge additions of 10,49,53,527/- on protective basis.
Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – The Tribunal in the instant case has referred the matter back to the AO categorically recording that there was no sufficient material placed before it to demonstrate as to what were the services rendered by the DSAs from which it could be ascertained as to how allowability to pay such brokerage had arisen and could be worked out. According to the Tribunal, mere Agreement was not sufficient for this purpose, as it does not reveal on what basis the brokerage is payable and is looked into what and how the assessee would be liable to pay such brokerage. Section 254(1) of the Act which confers power upon the Tribunal to decide the appeal clearly states that after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties, it may pass such an order thereon as thinks fit. After stating the principle on which commission paid by the assessee to DSAs would be treated as expenditure relating to particular areas, for want of sufficient evidence to arrive at a definite finding in this behalf, the Tribunal, in its discretion, remitted the case back to the AO giving clear guidelines how to examine the issue on the basis of records to be produced and what course of action, the AO was supposed to take. Honorable High Court do not find any infirmity in this approach of the Tribunal and dismisses the appeal in limine.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eastern Medikit Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Where the CIT while exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act, sets aside the order of the AO on merits as well and gives his categorical finding on the issue involved, naturally the Tribunal will be within its right to examine as to whether the decision on the said issue was proper or not and for this purpose, the Tribunal itself would be entitled to examine the issue on merits. It was, in these circumstances, the aforesaid two cases were decided. However, where the issue was not examined by the AO and on this ground CIT revised the order without giving his own findings, but directing the AO to do the necessary exercise, it was not proper for the Tribunal to decide the same, converting itself to a Court of first instance and deciding the factual aspect on which neither AO nor CIT(A) had returned any findings.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Mukesh Luthra (Delhi High Court) – Since the Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the additions made by the AO, the Honourable High Court has remitted back the matter to the Tribunal to decide as to whether M/s Globe Meditech was a dummy concern of the assessee herein and the order of the CIT (A) dealing with the addition holding that the assessee herein was not the benamidar is correct or not. The question of law is answered in the aforesaid terms, without any order as to cost.
Indore Mahavidyalaya versus National Council for Teachers Education(Delhi HC)- While the learned Single Judge noticed that the office of the respondent falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, yet he declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that on three previous occasions – including when the grievance arose vis-à-vis a previous order of the Appellate Committee, the writ petitioner approached the most convenient forum, i.e. the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was not appropriate to entertain this writ petition in Delhi. Apart from the fact that the exercise of jurisdiction in such cases is not compulsive, discretion is also exercised having regard to the fact-circumstance in each case. In the present case, the learned Single Judge clearly adopted the forum inconvenien approach in declining to exercise jurisdiction (Ref. Kusum Ingots & Alloys v.Union of India 2004 (6) SCC 254).
M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court – Full Bench) The three-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court in this case was considering the issue of whether it would have jurisdiction over a case whose cause of action arose from an order delivered by an appellate authority which is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. After considering several case laws on the subject, the Court came to the conclusion that the matter would have to be decided by a larger bench of the High Court
Merely because the assessee had been permitted to establish a new industrial undertaking for the manufacture of computer software as 100% EOU under the STP scheme was itself not enough to record a finding that the said unit had in fact been established and was entitled to claim the exemption under s 10B — as held by Delhi High Court in CIT v Modi Xerox — In favour of Revenue.
Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT v. Cargill Global Trading (I) (P) Limited on the issue of whether discounting charges paid to a non-resident on discounting of bills of exchange (BEs) can be characterized as ‘interest’, liable for withholding held that the discounting charges are not in the nature of ‘interest’ since they are not payable in respect of money borrowed or debt incurred by the Taxpayer.
Reliance in this connection can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Suresh Kumar Bansal vs UOI [W.P.(C) 2235/2011] wherein levy of Service Tax on the value of flats sold during construction stage has been held unconstitutional, if such value includes the value of Land.
