CIT Vs. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 594 (Delhi) -In this case, the assessee, engaged in the business of running cinemas, incurred expenditure towards architect fee for examining the technical viability of the proposal for takeover of cinema theatre for conversion into a multiplex/ four-screen cinema complexes. The project was, however, dropped due to lack of financial and technical viability. The issue under consideration is whether such expenses can be treated as revenue in nature, since no new asset has been created.
CIT v. Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 297 (Delhi) – The issue under consideration in this case is whether depreciation is allowable on the written down value of the entire block, even though the block includes some machinery which has already been discarded and hence, cannot be put to use during the relevant previous year.
Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd Vs. DGIT (Delhi HC)- Draft order is not the final assessment order and does not result in completion of assessment. Under sub-section (2) to Section 143, the assessee has a right to accept, within 30 days, the draft assessment order or has right to file objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer. Under Section 144C(3), the Assessing Officer shall complete assessment proceedings on the basis of the draft order only if the assessee files his acceptance to the variations or if no objections are received within 30 days.
Rajat Export Import India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Delhi HC)- The reasons to believe recorded in writing by the Assessing Officer in the present case have been quoted earlier. They are detailed and show application of mind. The reasons record inferences and conclusions. We wanted to examine the material or evidence on the basis of which conclusions/inferences were drawn. When the record of the Assessing Officer was produced, it was noticed that the documents/ material furnished by the Investigating Wing was not on record and, therefore the order dated 2.12.2011 was passed. Subsequently, on 16.12.2011, the Assessing Officer appeared and had stated that the information given/furnished by the Investigating Wing was in a CD. The print out thereof was furnished. Copy of the material/ evidence relating to the petitioner was furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, we did not feel that there was any necessity for the respondent to file counter affidavit.
Kanchenjunga Advertising P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Delhi HC)- It is a well settled position that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are different in nature and that the findings given in the assessment proceedings, though may constitute good evidence, cannot constitute conclusive evidence for the purposes of levying penalty. (please see CIT Vs. Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696, CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons ( 1970) 83 ITR 369, and Anantharam Veerasinghaiam & Co. Vs. CIT (1980)123 ITR 457).
Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Central Provident Fund Employees’ Union (Delhi HC)- Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents employed with the petitioner employer and persons with the same designation in the Central Secretariat and a perusal of the records of the
Delhi High Court held that sec. 220(2) provides for levy of interest if the demand is not paid within 30 days of the service of notice u/s 156. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where the assessee pays up the entire demand raised pursuant to the assessment order within the period specified in sec. 156, wins in appeal and the amount is refunded and subsequently loses in further appeal and has to re¬pay the taxes. In such a case, as the assessee is not in default in the first instance, no interest u/s 220(2) is payable for the period when the favourable verdict of the appellate authority was operative.
DIT Vs. Rio Tinto Technical Services (HC Delhi) – The payment in the present case is for furnishing of evaluation report. The fee paid is for the said purpose. To collect and collate the information and furnish evaluation report, the assessee was required and it was necessary to undertake certain tests, mapping and studies.
CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd (Delhi High Court) – The argument of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the approval was not granted by the Joint Commissioner for reopening U/s. 147. Instead, it was taken from the CIT, Delhi-III, New Delhi, who was not competent to approve even when he was a higher Authority inasmuch as Section 151 of the Act specifically mentions Joint Commissioner as the Competent Authority. This contention of the respondent-assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal thereby quashing the assessment proceedings. The contention of the Revenue that it was merely an irregularity committed by the AO and was rectifiable under Section 292B of the Act, has not been found convincing by the Tribunal. Where the Assessing Officer does not himself exercise his jurisdiction under Section 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent.
Present case appears to be one where prima facie the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA are taken undue advantage of. Therefore, at least in those cases where the reference was rejected in previous years on merits by the BIFR, guidelines can be issued to ensure that fresh references in subsequent years should not be mechanically entertained. Learned counsel for the respondent may be right in contending that while registering the references, the Registrar cannot act as quasi judicial authority which is the function of the Board.
