CIT Vs. Rajendra Seclease Ltd.(Delhi HC) – In absence of evidence to show either that the sales were sham transactions or that the market prices were in fact paid by the purchasers; the mere fact that the goods were sold at a concessional rate to benefit the purchasers at the expense of the company would not entitle the Income Tax department to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchasers, as profits of the company.
BLB Limited Vs. ACIT (Delhi HC) – If in the course of original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has considered and examined a particular aspect, the said aspect cannot be made a ground to reopen and initiate reassessment proceedings. The assessing authority cannot have a fresh look and reopen an assessment on the ground of change of opinion.
Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)- HC held that reliance on the negative order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) by the tax department is not a valid ground for not staying the demand where issues are covered by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). Further the same cannot be a ground for making adjustment of refund of earlier years under Section 245 of the Act.
C& C Construction Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)- Clause (a) of sub-Section (6) to Section 260A of the Act states that the High Court may decide an issue, which is not determined by the Appellate Tribunal. The word determined means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word determined presupposes an issue was raised or argued but there is failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicated the same. In a given case, a substantial question of law may arise because of the facts and findings recorded by the Tribunal, but the said issue/question is not determined. In such cases, an appeal under Section 260A of the Act can be entertained.
Pitney Bowes India Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) – Assessee itself treated the expenditure as capital in the books of accounts. However, at the same time, it was maintained that since it was paid for loss of business that KOAL would suffer for non-compete fee, the same was treated as revenue in nature. Likewise, in Schedule 2 to the balance sheet disclosing ‘fixed assets’, payment of non‑compete fee is treated as ‘intangible assets’. This also shows that the assessee treats this as asset acquired, which is intangible in nature. The issue regarding forwarding of payment was discussed by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in M/s Tecumesh India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in greater details and after applying the ratio of various judgments of different High Courts including jurisdictional Court as well as the Supreme Court, the Tribunal summarized in the following terms:
CIT Vs. Sumangal Overseas Ltd. (Delhi HC) – The Court held that where no appeal is preferred by the assessee against the quantum order, yet, while deciding the penalty appeal, it is open to the Tribunal to look into the transaction to see as to whether the claim was bona fide or it was bogus and result of falsehood. From that angle, when the Tribunal examined the matter, it found that on the facts of this case when advances given to the suppliers were not written off as irrecoverable, the same was allowable under Section 28 of the Act. A trading loss has a wider connotation than a bad debt. A bad debt may also be a trading loss, but a trading loss need not necessarily be a bad debt. There may be a bad debt which may not fall within the purview of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, but may well be regarded as one eligible for deduction incurred in the course of carrying on business will come under that category and will naturally enter into computing the net total income as the real profit chargeable to tax cannot be arrived at without setting off legitimate trading loss.
CIT Vs. Kas Movie Pvt. Ltd (Delhi HC) – For the purpose of claiming benefit under Section 80HHF of the Act, ownership of goods is not essential as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sea Pearl Industries and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 247 ITR 578. Thus, when two views were possible and the assessee made the claim on the basis of advice of the consultants, it was not a case where the penalty should have been imposed.
CIT vs. Moderate Leasing & Capital Services Ltd. (Delhi HC) – The Court, on the facts of the case held that where two portfolios are maintained by the assessee, i.e., investment portfolio and stock in trade, then, if the shares sold during the particular year pertains to investment portfolio and there happens to be loss, then such loss would be capital loss; and not the revenue loss.
In view of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Co. Appl. 1633/2011 in Co. Pet. No. 265/1998 as well as the fact that sale deeds in the present applications have been executed and some payments have been paid only after appointment of Provisional Liquidator, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision rendered by the One Man Committee. It is pertinent to mention that the sale deeds have been executed contrary to a specific injunction order dated 05th June, 1998 and the payments made by the applicants after the appointment of Provisional Liquidator have not been received by the Official Liquidator. Further, no transparent procedure of sale/auction has been followed as is normally done in cases after appointment of Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that even though the applicants are entitled in law to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, yet keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief under the said Section.
CIT vs. Manish Build Well Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)-In the present case, the CIT (A) has observed that the additional evidence should be admitted because the assessee was prevented by adducing them before the assessing officer. This observation takes care of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 46A. The observation of the CIT (A) also takes care of sub-rule (2) under which he is required to record his reasons for admitting the additional evidence. Thus, the requirement of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 46A have been complied with.
