Recently, the Delhi High Court (High Court) in the case of CIT v. Whirlpool of India Ltd. (ITA No. 1154 of 2009) (Judgement date: 24 January 2011 Assessment Year 1996-97) held that additional provision for warranty made was not contingent liability
The Assessee had a unit at Bhopal which was not functioning since the assessment year 1997-98. For the assessment year 1998-99, the assessee claimed depreciation in respect of closed unit at Bhopal on the ground that depreciation would be allowable s
The Delhi High Court has held that the payment made to foreign satellite service providers for use of transponders does not constitute „royalty? and hence is not taxable in India. It provides a welcome relief to the foreign satellite operating compan
Rahuljee & Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court) -The importers who got the goods cleared on the basis of licences purchased by them through one, Gautam Chaterjee and these licences had ultimately turned out to be forged and fabricated licences purported to be issued in the names of different licence holders. – order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by CESTAT confirming the order in Original of the Adjudicating Authority imposing the penalty upon the appellants is sustainable.
The Assessee for the relevant year filed return declaring “Nil” income. He case though processed under Section 143(1) was selected for scrutiny. The Assessee had shown the gross total income for the relevant year as Rs.6,92,453/- and deducted therefrom the amount applied for charitable purposes to the extent of Rs.27,28,001/-. The Assessee had made application of income by donation of Rs.26,66,000/- comprising of donation of Rs.25 lacs to BLB Trust as corpus donation and Rs.1,66,000/- to others. The source of the balance amount over and above the income of Rs.6, 92,453/- was from FDR encashment, MIP units a
Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.”
If the assessee is not able to give satisfactory explanation as to the “nature and source” of a sum found credited in his books, the sum may be treated as the “undisclosed income” of the assessee. The initial burden is on the assessee to explain the “nature and source” of the credit and to do so, the assessee is required to prove (a) Identity of the shareholder; (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) credit worthiness of shareholders; If the assessee has produced documents like PAN Card, bank account details or details from the bankers the onus shifts upon the AO and it is for him to reach the shareholders and the AO cannot burden the assessee merely on the ground that summons issued to the investors were returned back with the endorsement “not traceable”; There is an additional burden on the Department to show that even if share applicants did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence of such finding, addition cannot be made u/s 68 in the hands the assessee.
Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT held that the payments made for using capacity in a transponder for uplinking/down linking data do not constitute ‘royalty’ under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The High Court held that the customers did not make payments for the use of any process or equipment, since control over the process or equipment was with the taxpayer and not with the customers.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) – Leviability-Expenditure claimed by assessee disallowed by Tribunal-Concealment penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that Tribunal disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee.
For the purposes of section 115JB of the Act, the term gloss brought forward’ can only mean losses on the last day of the immediately preceding year and no other meaning can be given to it. In the case of CIT v. Sumi Motherson Innovative Engineerin
