CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.Vs.THE CHAIRMAN, ESI CORPORATION & ORS (DELHI HIGH COURT) -The present appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948 is directed against the judgment and order FAO 124/2002 15.02.2002 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, ESI Court, Delhi in ESI Petition No.19/99, whereby it was held that the appellant is covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and is not entitled to the relief claimed by it in the petition filed under Section 75 of the Act.
Recently Delhi High Court in the case of Areva T&D vs. ADIT ruled that the Revenue can reopen the assessment proceedings on change of opinion that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Such re-opening of the assessment by the Income Tax department is legal where no return has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year in dispute, high court said.
Delhi High Court (the High Court) in case of DIT v. SNC Lavalin International Inc [2011] 332 ITR 314 (Del) held that fees received by the taxpayer for providing technical drawings and reports in relation to infrastructure projects would qualify as Fees for Included Services under India-Canada tax treaty (tax treaty). Accordingly, tax was to be deducted at 15 percent on payments made to the taxpayer. Further, the High Court observed that the term transfer as used in Article 12(4) of the tax treaty does not refer to absolute transfer of ownership; but refers to transfer of technical drawings or designs for the use or the benefit of other party.
With respect to the Scheme, the tax department had raised similar objections before the Gujarat High Court, which after considering the contentions of both, the tax department and the petitioner company had dismissed the petition thereon. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the order of the Gujarat High Court and the same is pending before the Division Bench. The Delhi High Court, contrary to the order of the Gujarat High Court, has relied on settled judicial precedents and has passed the order sanctioning the Scheme.
S E Investments Limited Vs Union of India and Others- The Delhi High Court held that there is no provision for charging stamp duty on the increase in authorized stamp duty in Stamp Act. A statute authorizing the levy of stamp duty is in the nature of a fiscal statute, hence stamp duty cannot be levied except by the authority of law. The High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of AV Fernandez vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1957 SC 657) and
CIT vs. Cadbury India Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Levy of penalty under section 271C is not automatic. Before levying penalty, the concerned officer is required to find out that even if there was any failure referred to in the concerned provision the same was without a reasonable cause. The initial burden is on the assessed to show that there existed reasonable cause which was the reason for the failure referred to in the concerned provision. Thereafter the officer dealing with the matter has to consider whether the Explanationn offered by the assessee or the person, as the case may be, as regards the reason for failure, was on account of reasonable cause. “Reasonable cause” as applied to human action is that which would constrain a person of average intelligence and ordinary prudence. It can be described as a probable cause. It means an honest belief founded upon reasonable grounds, of the existence of a state of circumstances, which assuming them to be true, would reasonably lead any ordinary prudent and cautious man, placed in the position of the person concerned, to come to the conclusion that same was the right thing to do. The cause shown has to be considered and only if it is found to be frivolous, without substance or foundation, the prescribed consequences will follow.
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. DCM Limited (ITR Nos.87-89/1992) held that payments made for transfer of comprehensive technical information and know-how, which included all trade secrets and technical information, designs and drawings, etc. cannot be treated as income from royalty under the India-UK tax treaty (tax treaty). Accordingly, the taxpayer was not liable to deduct tax on the payments made to the foreign company.
It was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the averments raised by the appellant herein need to be decided on merits by the appellate authority in view of the issue raised by the appellant with regard to his liability. The impugned order has been passed on a prima facie view of the appellate authority. Keeping in view the averments raised by the appellant and the fact that he is an aged person of about 80 years and has no source of income of his own and the fact that he has already deposited a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs as a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, we are of the view that the pre-deposit order of an additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is not justified. In the given circumstances, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of asking for the pre-deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs.
CIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba (Delhi High Court – Full Bench) – If Assessing Officer Finds that the actual rent received is less than the “fair/market rent‟ because the assessee has received abnormally high interest free security deposit, he can undertake necessary exercise in that behalf. However, by no stretch of imagination, the notional interest on the interest free security can be taken as determinative factor to arrive at the “fair rent”. Section. 23(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not mandate this.
CIT V. Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. (ITA No. 164 of 2008) (Del)- Taxpayer filed its return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 on 31 March 2003 declaring a loss. The due date of filing the return of loss in terms of provisions of section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act,1 961 (the Act) was 31 October 2001. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (the AO) did not allow the carry forward of unabsorbed loss including the unabsorbed depreciation. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the AO’s order and held that the taxpayer was not allowed to carry forward the losses by virtue of section 80 of the Act. On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 2000-0 1 and 2001-02. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the tax authorities filed an appeal before the High Court.
