Shanti Bhushan vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) -Delhi High Court has disallowed the income tax deduction for expenses incurred on heart surgery by eminent lawyer Mr. Shanti Bhushan. It was argued by Mr. Bhushan that he suffered a heart attack due to professional work and the expenditure incurred by him on a heart operation must be deductible under Section 31 of the Income Tax (I-T) Act.
CIT v Radhey Shyam Bansal and Others (Delhi HC) In the instant case, the referring AO has not recorded satisfaction that any undisclosed income belongs to the assessee. In the letter/communication dated 15 July 2003 by the referring AO to the AO of the assessee, there is no allegation that the assessee was provided with accommodation book entries or the amounts belong to the respondent-assessee. Book entries were provided to third parties. Though the referring AO wrote a letter to the assessee’s AO informing him that the assessee was providing bogus accommodation book entries and the quantum of transactions was given as per the Annexures, the Annexures were missing from the file. Thus, the appellant-revenue has not discharged the onus that there was valid satisfaction as required under s 158 BD. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is the prerequisite of “satisfaction” as engrafted under s 158B for the purpose of the initiation of the block assessment proceeding is non-existent or absent.
The expenditure is to be fully allowed in the year in which the same is incurred provided it fulfills the test laid down under s 37, and only in exceptional cases can the expenditure be allowed to be spread over, that too, when the assessee chooses to do so as held by Delhi High Court in CIT v Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd — In favour of : The Assessee ; ITA Nos. 1820, 1974/2010 and 5/2011.
CIT Vs. Nestle India Ltd. -The Delhi high court last week dismissed the appeal of the Commissioner of Income Tax in a dispute over the deduction claimed by IT return in respect of remuneration/royalty paid by it to other subsidiaries and holding companies. The assessing officer disallowed the claim and the tax appellate tribunal held that the revenue authorities were wrong, leading to the appeal. The company, which makes food products and beverages, had debited a huge amount on account royalty payable to two overseas companies, namely Nestec S.A. and Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A., Switzerland. These payments were claimed as business expenditure on account of technical assistance rendered by the two companies to the Indian company. The authorities felt that the deduction was excessive. The high court upheld the ruling of the tribunal, which stated that the revenue authorities have not specified as to how much ordinary profit was supposed to be and the basis of its determination, before treating royalty payment as excessive and unreasonable.
CIT Vs Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Income tax – Capital or Revenue Receipt – Rule 115 – Whether, if assessee receives a sum on account of non-performance of the terms of the agreement by the purchaser under an arbitration award and keep it in the capital account, the surplus arising on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange is taxable as revenue receipt or should be considered as capital receipt – Whether profit and loss arising on account of appreciation or depreciation in the value of foreign currency is taxable only when there is actual conversion of foreign currency – Case Remanded
CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (Delhi High Court) Though it is possible that but for detection in the survey, the assessee might not have offered the income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can only be levied if “in the course of proceedings” the AO is satisfied that there is “concealment” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars“. The words “in the course of proceedings” mean the assessment proceedings because there is no question of the satisfaction of the AO in survey proceedings. Further, the question whether there is “concealment” or “inaccurate particulars” has to be determined with reference to the return of income. As the assessee had offered the detected income in the return, there was neither concealment nor the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Recently, the ITAT Delhi in the case of Eon Technology (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2011] 11 taxmann.com 53 (Del) held that payment by way of commission for sales and marketing support outside India does not constitute income chargeable to tax in India under the Income-tax act, 1961 (the Act).
Event and Entertainment Management Association versus Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)- Delhi HC has dismissed the petition seeking a direction to the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, to frame objective standards for determination and levying of royalties of various copyrighted works administered by Phonographic Performance Ltd and the Indian Performing Right Society Ltd and the mode of enforcing and administering such royalties. The association had also sought a further direction for investigation of the books of account of the two copyright societies to ascertain whether they have paid their dues to the owners/authors of copyrights. The association alleged that the government has failed to set down any objective standards and criteria for charging of royalties by the two societies, and the latter are therefore acting arbitrarily in fixing tariffs. The high court rejected the prayers stating that the fixation of tariff or royalties by the two companies in exercise of their powers under the Copyright Act is not arbitrary or unreasonable. The judgment explained that the law itself provided a mechanism for fixing tariffs and the matter can be dealt with by the copyright board.
Recently in the case of ITC Ltd v. CIT [2011-TIOL-287-HC-DEL-IT], the Delhi High Court (HC) held that the tips or service charges distributed to employees are to be treated as part of salary and tax is required to be withheld under section 192 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) from the same. The AO treated the value of these tips as ‘salary’ and held that the assessees were liable to withheld tax at source from such payments under section 192 of the Act.
Every claim made against an insurance company in respect of a loss, would be a claim within purview of claims “requiring to be paid or settled” under section 64UM(2) of Insurance Act.
