Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)- The words “so far as may be” in clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 153A could not be interpreted that the issue of notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory in case of assessment under Section 153A. The use of the words, “so far as may be” cannot be stretched to the extent of mandatory issue of notice under Section 143(2).
Fab India Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- An inadequate enquiry on the part of the AO would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under s 263 merely because he has a different opinion on the matter. Issues, in respect of which the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), could not have been taken up by the Commissioner while exercising his powers under s 263(1).
Bajaj Travels Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (Delhi HC)- The appellant submitted a detailed written reply dated 17th November, 2005. The defence was that it was paying service tax as per its bona fide understanding that the service tax was to be paid on the commission retained by the appellant. It was pleaded that the matter of calculation was not clear to it. Therefore, it had been filing its service tax returns on the basis of the commission retained by it and the correct method of computing the service tax was pointed out by the visiting team of the department. Therefore, the allegation of suppression, mis-statement were wrongly attributed to it. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also referred to series of orders passed by the various Benches of CESTAT where such penalties were set aside holding that when the service tax/short-service tax was paid before the show cause notice, it was a bona fide error.
Ravina Khurana Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- The applicant wants to re-argue and re-agitate the issues/ questions which have been considered and decided by this Court in the decision dated 20th April, 2011. This is not permissible. The review application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Madhya Bharat Energy Corpn Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- It is noted that the impugned assessment is in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act and the Act does not specifically provide that the assessment made under Section 147 of the Act will be after issue of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In fact, AO has the basic jurisdiction to assess the income in terms of Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act where he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-assessee under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs.
In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi (for short ‘the tribunal’) in ITA No. 2299/Del/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law.
CIT vs. Cosmo Films Ltd (Delhi High Court) – High Court observed that if the sale and lease back agreement between the assessee and the OSEB indicate that the assessee had purchased the plant and machinery from OSEB for a price and had leased out the same to OSEB on lease rent, the revenue department cannot discard the said sale and lease back agreement on the ground that the underlying motive of the assessee to enter into the said transaction was to reduce its income-tax liability.
CIT v Harsh Talwar (High Court of Delhi)- The Assessing Officer has gone on the presumption that the assessee himself agreed to the surrender on his own sweet will and consequently, penalty is leviable. This is not reason justifiable enough for the levy of penalty. The assessee might surrender an amount for taxation for various reasons best known to the assessee. The surrender of an amount to taxation in the course of assessment proceedings, no doubt is a good finding for initiation of penalty proceeding but is not strong enough for the levy of penalty especially when in the course of penalty proceedings the assessee is able to place evidences and explanation and where he is fully entitled to challenge the surrender and prove the surrender itself was not called for.
Indglonal Investment & Finance Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi HC)- Whether since in accordance with section 139(9) assessee had annexed statement of total income, computation of tax payable on total income and attachment of original TDS certificate to return of income, it could be held assessee had made a claim for refund – Held, yes – Whether therefore, revenue was to be directed to process claim on merits for refund to assessee – Held, yes
