Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. DCIT (Delhi HC)- We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The order passed under Section 263 became final. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 263 has decided the issue himself and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income on the basis of his decision. He has not relegated the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.
CIT Vs. Rajan Nanda (Delhi HC) -Every assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with the provisions of Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act. The job of the Court is to simply look at the provisions of the Act and to see whether these provisions allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax.
CIT VS. Mohan Meakin Ltd. (Delhi HC) – In the case of the uncashed cheques amount to Rs.1,97,758/-, the finding of the Tribunal is that that there was no claim for deduction in any of the earlier years and, therefore, the amount cannot be added under Section 41(1) of the Act. It is not in dispute, as it cannot be, that the amount of uncashed cheques was not allowed as deduction in any of the earlier assessment years. As per the assessee this represents the cheques received and remaining on hand on the last day of the accounting period. Tribunal has accepted this stand. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have not stated why the stand of the assessee was not acceptable. Revenue has also not stated and averred that the assessment order now passed, this aspect was not considered and examined. In these circumstances, Section 41(1) can hardly have any application. We accordingly, uphold the decision of the Tribunal deleting the addition.
CIT Vs. Mother Dairy India Ltd. (Delhi HC) – It is a well-settled proposition that if the property in the goods is transferred and gets vested in the concessionaire at the time of the delivery then he is thereafter liable for the same and would be dealing with them in his own right as a principal and not as an agent of the Dairy. The clauses of the agreements show that there is an actual sale, and not mere delivery of the milk and the other products to the concessionaire.
CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
It is a settled proposition in law that this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review as we are exercising now, is entitled to mould the relief according to the facts and circumstances and to deny relief even though finding any error in the action of which judicial review is sought. The powers of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 are wide. This Court, to do substantial justice between the parties,
Kwality Ice Cream Company And Anr Vs. UOI (Delhi HC)- Period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. If that be the position, the period of limitation prescribed for demand of duty under Section 11A is normally one year and, in exceptional circumstance of a case falling under the proviso to Section 11A(1), the period of limitation is five years.
CIT Vs. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC)- In the instant case, it was held that since the agreement between the assessee and the distributor clearly stated that the agreement was on principal-to-principal basis, payments made by the assessee to the distributor were incentives and discounts and were not to be treated as commission liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act.
Praveen Soni vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Delhi HC) – On the above issue, the Delhi High Court held that the provisions of section 80-IB nowhere stipulated a condition that the claim for deduction under this section had to be made from the first year of qualification of deduction failing which the claim will not be allowed in the remaining years of eligibility. Therefore, the deduction under section 80-IB should be allowed to the assessee for the remaining years up to the period for which his entitlement would accrue, provided the conditions mentioned under section 80-IB are fulfilled.
DIT Vs. DSD Noell GmbH (Delhi High Court)- Can the Assessing Officer bring to tax the actual profits as per books of accounts, if the same is higher than 10% of receipts which are deemed to be the profits under section 44BBB in case of a foreign company engaged in turnkey projects?
