CIT Vs. East India Syntex Limited (Delhi High Court)- It is not in dispute that the entries were made contemporaneously when the expenditure was incurred between September, 1997 and December 1997. Therefore, though the search was in September, 1998, it cannot be denied that the entries had been made in the books of accounts by that time. This is what the CIT (A) has noted in para 27 of his order by saying that the case of the AO is not that these were not made in the regular books of account.
CIT Vs Meera Chatterjee (Delhi High Court)- In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not held that it is possible to compute and calculate the cost of acquisition of the tenancy rights in the hands of the original tenant Ram Krishan Dalmia. The said exercise was not undertaken by him in the assessment order. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not required to determine, decide and compute income from capital gains under Section 45.
CIT Vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. (Delhi HC) – Tribunal noticed that there were two coursed open to it. First course was to draw an adverse inference against the assessee and second course was to restore the matter back to the AO. It chose second course only on the ground that the quantum of amount involved was high, that is hardly a ground or justification for restoring and giving premium to the assessee for its negligence.
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.
